Grand National jockey Katie Walsh defends race as concerns over horse deaths mount.

W

winkles

Well-Known Member
Joined
19 March 2011
Messages
286
Visit site
Hoping this won't be a duplicate, can't see another thread about this so far but I could have missed one. Also wasn't sure if it belonged in News, CR or here.

Grand National jockey Katie Walsh defends race as concerns over horse deaths mount.

What do you make of the piece? Personally I think she comes across as very crass and from looking at the comments on the article she's done the sport no favours in terms of public perception.

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/racing/grand-national-jockey-katie-walsh-defends-race-as-concerns-over-horse-deaths-mount-8556124.html
 
Last edited:
Not crass at all just totally realistic. Good piece from Katy, she's put it into perspective well.

The changes the protesters and RSPCA have had made (at their instigation) have caused nothing but problems by mkaing it easier and faster; they should be congratulating themselves on making the race more dangerous for the horses.
 
From what I understand it's the improvements which have added to the danger by speeding up the race. As a jockey who has to earn a living riding horse's she's hardly likely to be critical. I don't see anything wrong with her comments either.
 
What Maesfan says. They've made it much faster and thus more dangerous. But look it, if you hate racing you'll never see it in any other light.

Terri
 
Not crass at all - just a comment from someone who understands the risks involved in such a dangerous sport.
 
I wouldn't say that I hate racing, but I do hate the National, as I hate seeing a horse die, which seems to happen pretty much every time. I think all the horses are capable of jumping round, but simply too many set off..

At least this year Aintree can blame the RSPCA for the issues that arise!
 
Honey08- have you ACTUALLY checked the statistics???? 'nearly every time' is a pointless remark. Check the statistics and I believe there were very few deaths in the 50s 60s and 70s and before... The percentage of deaths to runners is much greater since they have 'improved' it.
Also, I think TBs are being bred much less 'robust' than they used to be.....
 
I think we have to accept that there will be an equal number of people from either side of the fence tbh... and a few who actually sit on it (me being one of them).

She's right about one thing though... there are thousands, if not millions, of horses all over the world left to starve and work 10x as hard. Yes, some may be ex-racehorses. No-one seems to bat an eyelid at the poor tourist horses made to draw cartloads of people all day with neither food nor water in cities all over the world because it's romantic.

When we push animals beyond capabilities for our pleasure, it will always be emotive.
 
stormox said:
Also, I think TBs are being bred much less 'robust' than they used to be.....
Click to expand...

Check out CPTrayes thread on the subject. You are absolutely right. There were some very knowledgeable folk on there explaining some of the genetics which made for interesting reading.
 
Whats the alternative then? Wait for the racing industry to do something?? Aintree could have cut their field down without prompting.... It won't. It doesn't care. The death risk is half of what attracts the non-horsey public. The danger factor. Its about the money.

No I haven't checked statistics for 50 years ago, I'm just going off what I've seen in my lifetime..
 
Last edited:
Some of the lines in breeding yes. But maybe people out to venture onto sites with old pictures of stallions and some mares. Very little bone and some shocking conformation. What has gone is the old NH type horse bred for stamina. Nobody wants those.

Honey08. Every horse sport is about the money. So please. Head over to Palm Beach in the winter if you want to see money. I've seen both racing and the hunter/jumper sports. I can honestly say the most obscene money and little in the way of ethics was not in the sport of racing. And there's some right unethical people in racing. I've also seen on a much smaller scale the stupidity to get a 80 cent ribbon. So it's ALL about the money in some form or another.

Terri
 
So it's okay to run horses into the ground, over fences that are too high and have a relatively high fatality rate, because they were looked after beforehand? :confused: Might as well just stick them in the food chain after they've finished racing then, if that's the logic :(
 
Equilibrium Ireland said:
Honey08. Every horse sport is about the money. So please. Head over to Palm Beach in the winter if you want to see money. I've seen both racing and the hunter/jumper sports. I can honestly say the most obscene money and little in the way of ethics was not in the sport of racing. And there's some right unethical people in racing. I've also seen on a much smaller scale the stupidity to get a 80 cent ribbon. So it's ALL about the money in some form or another.

Terri
Click to expand...

Terri, sorry, not quite sure what you're telling me here. That because there are worse things go on I shouldn't be grumbling? Of course its all about the money, obviously, but it doesn't make it right in my book.

I would love to see the same horses go round that same course under different conditions (as I said, less horses), they are great horses and its an exciting course, I just don't enjoy sitting wincing at every fence in case a horse doesn't get up. Sorry if that makes me a fluffy bunny.

Anyway, I will butt out of this now, as this thread is meant to be about the article, not just a pro/against the National.
 
Really? No one else thought that this:

“These horses are so well looked after. Better than some children, to be honest with you. At the end of the day it would be a lot worse if it had been two jockeys who lost their lives. I think everyone should remember that. These things happen”.

could be perceived as crass?

And I don't think either the good treatment of the horses off of the track or that child abuse happens makes the death of racehorses any more acceptable.
 
winkles said:
Really? No one else thought that this:

“These horses are so well looked after. Better than some children, to be honest with you. At the end of the day it would be a lot worse if it had been two jockeys who lost their lives. I think everyone should remember that. These things happen”.

could be perceived as crass?.
Click to expand...

No, because it's neither crude or unrefined, and does not lack discrimination nor sensibility.
 
amymay said:
No, because it's neither crude or unrefined, and does not lack discrimination nor sensibility.
Click to expand...

"These things happen"

They happen because the horses are entered even though the race has a reputation for being dangerous. They wouldn't happen if the course was properly assessed and amended by equestrian professionals or if the jockeys and trainers refused to partake until they deemed it properly safe for the horses, either in design, in the number of horses running, or both.

Why don't the people actually involved with the horses actually do something to improve the safety of the course rather than complain about how little the protesters know and how unsafe the course increasingly becomes because of them. The protesters would not have become involved if they were not concerned about the amount of horses who have died on the track.

Time the participants of the race stopped accepting racehorse deaths as "things that happen", especially when we know why they are happening. But they won't, because as Terri says, it is all about the money. That is what seems crass to me.
 
stormox said:
Honey08- have you ACTUALLY checked the statistics???? 'nearly every time' is a pointless remark. Check the statistics and I believe there were very few deaths in the 50s 60s and 70s and before... The percentage of deaths to runners is much greater since they have 'improved' it.
Also, I think TBs are being bred much less 'robust' than they used to be.....
Click to expand...

This. The race needs to be run SLOWLY WITH A SLOW PACE. The fences need to be RESPECTED and now they have a plastic core and are lower i will put my life savings on the line that there will be some jockeys (maybe not the more experienced ones) who charge at them like poles on the ground. In the 50's 60's and 70's the jockeys went slow and respected the fences therefore less deaths.

Also i see less old fashioned irish hunter types at the races nowadays, the modern steeplechasers look more like long distance flat horses than the old fashioned types who in my mind are the best.

People also need to remember that Animal Aid and the RSPCA (who can't even seem to handle an everyday horses' welfare nowadays) know NOTHING about racing especially compared to the experts. They do not know about pacing and i do not think they have the right to comment and be so highly publicized about the national when they do not pay a speck of attention to any other aspect of horse racing apart from the national. If you sent some of these people to an average steeplechase on a monday morning with a £2,000 prize fund and asked them questions about the pace of the race, who runs where and which jockey tends to adapt which riding style etc and this horses's form etc they wouldnt have a clue, whereas any keen racing follower/stable lad/lass/trainer/jockey/people who have the heart to get up at 6am daily to shovel racehorse poo WOULD KNOW.
 
"These things happen" is neither a crude or unrefined comment. It does not lack discrimination nor sensibility.


winkles said:
"These things happen"
Click to expand...

Well the fact is that when you're involved in a dangerous sport - quite simply they do happen. Whether that's injury or fatality to a horse - or a rider.

You should also look at the same article printed elsewhere - where the interview is a little fuller and perhaps more in context....


Why don't the people actually involved with the horses actually do something to improve the safety of the course rather than complain about how little the protesters know and how unsafe the course increasingly becomes because of them.
Click to expand...

I think those in racing would argue that the race was safer before the likes of the RSPCA got involved, ie bigger fences, slower course. So possibly feel that their involvement should be concerned with ensuring it remains as safe as possible when changes they view as being less than satisfactory are suggested.
 
FinalFurlong said:
People also need to remember that Animal Aid and the RSPCA (who can't even seem to handle an everyday horses' welfare nowadays) know NOTHING about racing especially compared to the experts.
Click to expand...
You'd think, with all their money, the RSPCA could afford to pay for the consulting services of one or more racing experts.
 
amymay said:
You should also look at the same article printed elsewhere - where the interview is a little fuller and perhaps more in context....
Click to expand...

Could you provide a link to that please?

I haven't responded to the rest of your post because I'd just be repeating the points I made in my previous post.
 
Last edited:
I hate the national with a passion but do feel the number should be restricted to say 25/30 and that there should be some sort of pacemaker.

I would imagine we will lose some horses this year which is such a shame but their will be more and more outcry each year.
 
amymay said:
Well the fact is that when you're involved in a dangerous sport - quite simply they do happen.
Click to expand...
I suppose the crassness relates to the subjective worth of the person, animal or thing being endangered. Sending people into space is a dangerous activity, but if someone were to have said of the Challenger shuttle disaster (for example) "These things happen", I would expect it to be considered crass by many. A more 'mundane' example would be road traffic accidents. Tragic, obviously, to those involved, but then again these things happen!
 
fburton said:
You'd think, with all their money, the RSPCA could afford to pay for the consulting services of one or more racing experts.
Click to expand...

Exactly. The racing experts have to defend the sport but of course the papers dont listen to them because the RSPCA are such experts on everything being a 'royal society' and all, plus a story in the RSPCA's favor sells more. And of course the RSPCA wouldn't want to back down on their 'expert' word now as they've already said it.
'the national is cruel' says some officer who has never attended an everyday race meeting in his life and doesn't even know what weight cloth is.
 
It' s love/hate thing with me - I watch it every year even though I tell myself i won't and I feel great those times when the race finishes without injury. However, the ONLY change I would like to see which seems to be the ONLY thing they don't ever change, is the amount of runners! I think 40 is just too many and I don't see why they don't just reduce this by 10 or 15. In the normal NH races you see over a weekend on CH4 for instance, I don't think you ever see a race with many more than 20 runners and the Gold Cup for example, which is another prestigious race just doesn't have the number of runners. It generally seems to be the horses colliding with one another when too bunched up that causes the main accidents IMO. Change the numbers, see what results this has.

However, even though I say that, I have watched the Saturday racing for many years and quite often there is a horse fatality so it isn't just the GN where these happen. Whoever said on this thread they'd like to see them go round the course just not in a race - I don't get it? A horse (as can a jockey) get injured just going solo - there are enough horse accidents and indeed rider fatalities in eventing to highlight this!?

Horse riding, whatever your discipline of choice is dangerous and anything can happen. what should these racehorses do? Should we have no racing at all? The race can't be run slowly - it wouldn't then be a 'race'!

The worst accident I have had in my riding history (over 30 years), was when my horse slipped in walk on a road whilst out hacking. Accidents are going to happen - it'd be great if they didn't but they do.
 
Just like to point out to people saying "it's about the money".

Well so is the RSPCA's involvement in the GN.
Why do you think they focus on a high profile event?
To get the money off of naive people who think they have animal welfare as their main concern.

Everybody you talk to can tell you of an incident/ongoing problem that the RSPCA have refused to get involved in. Meanwhile they play politics and to the crowd.
 
amymay said:
I think those in racing would argue that the race was safer before the likes of the RSPCA got involved, ie bigger fences, slower course. So possibly feel that their involvement should be concerned with ensuring it remains as safe as possible when changes they view as being less than satisfactory are suggested.
Click to expand...

I agree, and unfortunately I think it will be very telling this year with such alterations. I also think that because a majority of people protesting are ill informed, it will immediately be written down to animal cruelty and berated in the press, despite many from the industry making their concerns about the alterations well known.
 
Maesfen said:
Not crass at all just totally realistic. Good piece from Katy, she's put it into perspective well.

The changes the protesters and RSPCA have had made (at their instigation) have caused nothing but problems by mkaing it easier and faster; they should be congratulating themselves on making the race more dangerous for the horses.
Click to expand...

Equilibrium Ireland said:
What Maesfan says. They've made it much faster and thus more dangerous. But look it, if you hate racing you'll never see it in any other light.

Terri
Click to expand...

amymay said:
Not crass at all - just a comment from someone who understands the risks involved in such a dangerous sport.
Click to expand...

^^^this, this and this
 
Maesfen said:
The changes the protesters and RSPCA have had made (at their instigation) have caused nothing but problems by mkaing it easier and faster; they should be congratulating themselves on making the race more dangerous for the horses.
Click to expand...

I think thats rubbish. Trying to make the race safer and save deaths is surely something all proper horse-lovers should want?! The Grand National is an absolute disgrace, I really hope these changes help this weekend.

I hate people saying "its a dangerous sport, you have to expect fatalities". I event, I know there are deaths in this sport also but nothing LIKE the amount in racing - the Grand National in particular! I would turn against eventing if Badminton for example had this many deaths each year!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top