Dead horse at Aintree today

I too agree that he looked off at the second last jump. I suspect the injury occurred there and that was the reason for the near fall at the last. His action behind had gone and I find it hard to accept that the jockey wasn't aware. However, I equally think whatever he did he was going to get hammered so he continued. Was it right, absolutely not, do I understand why he carried on yes. It looked awful and it was unforgivable and far worse than the young jockey at Fakenham!
 
bonny said:
Would it have made much difference to the horse if he had been pts 10 seconds earlier ?
Click to expand...
I don't know but it might make a huge difference to the way racing is viewed and the way that other horses would be treated subsequently. It really matters. 10 seconds...perhaps GD was feeling the injury, perhaps not but it is sickening that a horse with a broken back, having had a very serious stumble/failure to jump safely, was whipped over the finish line. In 10 seconds the jockey could have recognized the potential injury and pulled up. That would have been humane, putting the horse first. I think that is the difference that 10 seconds could have made.
 
Yes, the pts was inevitable either way. But I'd rather some humanity and respect was shown to the horse. I think however much adrenaline was involved the horse was still in pain as evidenced by his very peculiar gait, and I think it makes a difference that the end of his life wasnt spent being whipped while in pain.
 
Last edited:
Crazy_cat_lady said:
He was probably going to be pts regardless but id have rather seen him be pulled up after sprawling, than whipped 3 times during a drive to the line running an extra 200m or so. Yes adrenaline may have been masking it, but its the whole overall picture and the events leading up to his pts that makes this so unsavoury
Click to expand...
Think we would all agree with that with hindsight but we really are talking about seconds, to make a decision and act on it.
 
minesadouble said:
I've watched the video shown on this thread and from the clip there is little difference between the action of the winning horse and that chasing it, the second didn't even really look to be closing the gap.
When I read the comments saying the jockey would have known I was expecting a real difference in action.

I'm not for one minute downplaying what a tragedy this was but I don't think we should be laying so much blame on the Jockey.
Click to expand...
I have to agree with you. He took some odd high steps with his left hind but then there wasn’t a huge change in action. I can’t imagine that being very easy to feel on a galloping horse full of adrenaline. It’s bloody tragic and the most awful situation, but I don’t think the jockey needs hanging for it
 
Having watched that clip, there's no way in a million years that a jockey who has spent as many hours atop galloping horses as he has, didn't know there was something catastrophically wrong. If he had the time and mental awareness to draw his whip, he had time to pull the horse up. A sickening spectacle.
 
Whether PT knew the horse had gone wrong or not, or knew and pushed on regardless thinking it wasn't anything much, or knew and thought "f it - I'm in for a win". The non-trier rule needs looking at if the horses' welfare is the primary concern. I think too many horses are pushed far too hard, because the jockeys don't want to be up before the stewards for not riding for the best possible placing. Horses are so honest, they'll keep going past the point of harm to themselves.
 
This injury was unsurvivable, but another might be survivable. If it is the norm to chase an injured horse to the end of the race then this is deeply troubling.

I'm amazed that a few are saying that they can't see that the horse is injured as it runs to the line. 🤯

I would also be amazed if the jockey couldn't feel it (although I've never been in that sort of situation so wouldn't like to say for sure), and I don't think he made a bad decision so much as made the default decision which is to drive for the line irrelevant of what is going on underneath him. That is the danger of using animals in this kind of hyper-competitive, high-stakes sport.
 
Let’s also not pretend that the entire purpose of a whip isn’t to drive a prey animal forwards. It doesn’t do any of us any favours.

The entire point isn’t that the horse could have been saved, he couldn’t have. The point is that, in that moment, the desire to win was put above the horses welfare. The jockey did not know the horse had an unsurvivable injury. And we see this too often across all equestrian sports.
 
bonny said:
Think we would all agree with that with hindsight but we really are talking about seconds, to make a decision and act on it.
Click to expand...

He was ridden through it and whipped to keep going. With a broken back.
So yes, those seconds might have made all the difference to that horse in that moment.
 
meleeka said:
Does any of this actually matter? just because you don't think the horse looked like he was in physical distress, you can't surely think that he wasn't? adrenaline would have made it easier on him but Im sure he knew something was very wrong.
Click to expand...
Knowing someone who fell off a carriage he was driving, getting his foot through the spokes and it doing a full revolution with him attached, he then ran after his horses and only when a passing motorist made him stop and sit down, did he realise that his foot was facing backwards not forwards. He was completely oblivious to his body as he was so focused on his runaway carriage. I can see where the horse was so focused on its running that it was not fully aware of any pain until it was stopped.

I believe in this instance the jockey is telling the truth about not knowing how hurt the horse was, the horse probably was also not fully aware of his own injuries.
 
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.
 
What do you expect PT to say ? Even if he did know that things were not right beneath him, he is never ever going to admit it.
whether he admits it to himself, is another matter.

I think the fact that the racing welfare man, Willie Mullins and others were interviewed to back this up is just racing doing damage limitation and trying to sweep it under the carpet whilst dismissing anyone who has anything to do with horses and doesn't agree with them. It would be a very brave person to now say of course he felt the horse had gone wrong. Let's hope when things calm down a bit, someone of note will stick their head above the parapet.

The whole thing is horrific. Horses have so much trust in us and this shows more than ever that we must be the advocates for their welfare. Welfare must come first.
 
Last edited:
rabatsa said:
Knowing someone who fell off a carriage he was driving, getting his foot through the spokes and it doing a full revolution with him attached, he then ran after his horses and only when a passing motorist made him stop and sit down, did he realise that his foot was facing backwards not forwards. He was completely oblivious to his body as he was so focused on his runaway carriage. I can see where the horse was so focused on its running that it was not fully aware of any pain until it was stopped.

I believe in this instance the jockey is telling the truth about not knowing how hurt the horse was, the horse probably was also not fully aware of his own injuries.
Click to expand...
Its possible that the jockey was not aware of the specifics of the horse's injury but he absolutely would have been aware of a problem and the likelihood of a serious injury. He should have pulled up as soon as he could have done and not ridden for the line. That needs, at the very least, to be formalized in jump racing - with jockeys responsible for pulling horses up after bad landings, injurious falls etc. Course officials could also indicate where a jockey must pull up, in the case that they are not aware. Yes, this would ruin the 'sport' but it would protect horses slightly more. Racing risks becoming completely unacceptable unless more is done to safeguard horses.
 
rabatsa said:
I believe in this instance the jockey is telling the truth about not knowing how hurt the horse was, the horse probably was also not fully aware of his own injuries.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
bonny said:
That’s what we are talking about, he could have been pulled up after the last jump and pts but he finished the race instead, the end result was the same for the horse who had an unsurvivable injury. I wouldn’t want to be Paul Townend with the amount of hate going on.
Click to expand...
I think this behaviour should not be rewarded in any way, at the end of the day money is involved and even if he didn't know or the horse had survived this injury there should be a penalty. The authorities have taken the jockeys word he couldn't feel that there was something wrong, but he has a financial incentive to get that horse over the line, above his booked ride money. What's the saying, 'flogging a dead horse'. I think at least the prize money should be forfeited and perhaps the win allocated to the horse in second, if its about racing and not money.

There shouldn't been seen to any incentive at all for people to even think about riding or pushing a horse in distress, because these are professionals so the standard should be higher. If I injure a patient by accident I am not rewarded, it doesn't matter if I was aware or not, and there would be certainly a whole lot of training and reflection that went with it.

The way this is being treated is like the horse is disposable, and I think that is what most people find really upsetting. 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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top