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

[Elf On A Shelf]

It's not about the money it's about the prestige.

Your average GN runner will be at least 8yo so will have been in training for 3-4years previous. Thats 16-18k a year training fees minimum. Say the horse runs 5-6 times a season so that's entry fees, jockeys fees, transport, lads exspenses et al to pay for. so we are talking 300-500 a race on average. None of this includes vets fees or shoes by the way. Then you get the National entry itself. I think it's £400 for the initial entry and at each declaration stage you pay moreand I think it racks up to 4-5k you pay from start to finish to be in the National itself. So by the times your horse lines up you have spent over 100k to get it there. The prize pot to the winner is 500k but the trainer, jockey and stable staff get their cut so the owner is left with about 400k. So, if all things go well and your horse breezes through training and wins the race as an 8yo then you are 300k up. But then how much did you buy the horse for? If the horse runs in the race from 8-12yo and finally wins at 12yo then you really don't get much profit at all.

Scary money when you put it onto paper. Most owners just want to have a runner in the race and for it to jump round and return home safe. Nothing more.

 

[catwithclaws]

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!

But this is the problem MM! By making the fences smaller and easier, it is making it more dangerous as the horses then go faster and faster over them, which obviously is then likely to cause falls. Years ago when the fences were bigger, the horses went more slowly, and therefore far more came home safely.

The RSPCA and the protestors are going to make it worse and worse over the years, but they will still blame the racing fraternity because they are clueless and won't listen to anyone who knows what they are talking about

 

[winkles]

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!

Precisely. I think we all accept equestrianism is dangerous - so we should endeavour to make all events as safe as possible and not just condemn constant and explainable horse fatalities as part of the sport.

The RSPCA and the protestors are going to make it worse and worse over the years, but they will still blame the racing fraternity because they are clueless and won't listen to anyone who knows what they are talking about

I quote my earlier post:

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.

 

[RunToEarth]

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!

Trying to make the race safer is not going to cause anyone problems. What causes the problems are the fact that the obstacles are smaller - you said youself that you event, surely you must understand that bigger fences demand a much greater respect by both horse and rider, and by altering them they are inviting much faster approaches.

Racing is at the forefront of this animal rights debate because it is televised and supported by a very large amount of non - horsey people, the deaths on the eventing circuit are widely confined to being reported on in here, in H & H and eventing mag.

 

[catwithclaws]

Precisely. I think we all accept equestrianism is dangerous - so we should endeavour to make all events as safe as possible and not just condemn constant and explainable horse fatalities as part of the sport.



I quote my earlier post:

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.

But what can they do?? Its clear that making the fences smaller and easier is making the number of accidents worse not better!

The only thing that I can think of would be to make the number of entries lower, maybe from 40 to 30 - perhaps even I would back this

 

[AmyMay]

And I quote mine back at ya.....

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.

 

[winkles]

But what can they do?? Its clear that making the fences smaller and easier is making the number of accidents worse not better!

And I quote mine back at ya.....

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.

I have never said I am in favour of fence height reduction. I've never said I've supported the RSPCAs decisions to intervene. But I do believe that the RSPCA wouldn't have needed to intervene if the race was safe in the first place.

What can they do? Refuse to partake until control of the course is handed back to the people who understand how racing works (and who refuse to accept horse fatalities as part of the sport) and until they (the jockeys, the trainers, the owners) deem it properly safe for the horses, either in design, in the number of horses running, or both.

 

[gadetra]

And I quote mine back at ya.....

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.

This. Also the fences being smaller, with such a big field, doesn't give the horses anything to back off. There is a better class of animal there now than in older times, it is notnthe old handicapping race it used to be, with older handicappers well campaigned. Horses are trained differently nowadays, and don't start as often as they used to be, which is a good thing. (remember the stick Henriette Knight got for not running Best Mate so much for his 'adoring public'.) It is run at a quicker pace now. Speed plus the number of runners is the problem. personally I would raise the height of the fance again, to back them off more, the more, so you need a really really consistent but unflashy out and out stayer to get around, not such a classy and quicker animal. It is a stamina test after all.

I don't think Katie's comments were crass in any way shape or form. She is being honest and realistic. It is the truth of then thing and I for one agree with her.

I will be watching the race It is more of a spectacle than anything else I suppose.

Also EKW's comments about the money involved are spot on I think.

 

[catwithclaws]

I have never said I am in favour of fence height reduction. I've never said I've supported the RSPCAs decisions to intervene. But I do believe that the RSPCA wouldn't have needed to intervene if the race was safe in the first place.

What can they do? Refuse to partake until control of the course is handed back to the people who understand how racing works (and who refuse to accept horse fatalities as part of the sport) and until they (the jockeys, the trainers, the owners) deem it properly safe for the horses, either in design, in the number of horses running, or both.

Horse fatalities are part of the sport unfortunately. Horses don't just die racing in the GN, it happens in all racing, flat and jump. The GN is so high profile, and is probably the only race with such a high percentage of non-horsey viewers, and that's really the only reason it gets so much attention when there are fatalities. Because it is in the public eye at the time.

I don't know what can be done to make it 'safe enough' for the people that don't think it is safe enough - but personally I think racing (or eventing and showjumping for that matter) simply cannot be made 'safe'. So I enjoy all of them for what they are.

 

[catwithclaws]

This. Also the fences being smaller, with such a big field, doesn't give the horses anything to back off. There is a better class of animal there now than in older times, it is notnthe old handicapping race it used to be, with older handicappers well campaigned. Horses are trained differently nowadays, and don't start as often as they used to be, which is a good thing. (remember the stick Henriette Knight got for not running Best Mate so much for his 'adoring public'.) It is run at a quicker pace now. Speed plus the number of runners is the problem. personally I would raise the height of the fance again, to back them off more, the more, so you need a really really consistent but unflashy out and out stayer to get around, not such a classy and quicker animal. It is a stamina test after all.

I don't think Katie's comments were crass in any way shape or form. She is being honest and realistic. It is the truth of then thing and I for one agree with her.

I will be watching the race It is more of a spectacle than anything else I suppose.

Also EKW's comments about the money involved are spot on I think.

Probably what I'm trying to say, but better put

 

[cptrayes]

It's not about the money it's about the prestige.

You mean for the owners, and I agree with you. But the whole industry falls apart without betting revenues, which are absolutely enormous, so as an industry as a whole it's ALL about the money.

That's partly what makes it such a difficult debate as to whether it is right to knowingly cause the death of horses in the pursuit of profit. If it stopped, a lot of money would disappear out of the economy and right now, at least, we need it.

 

[lachlanandmarcus]

But this is the problem MM! By making the fences smaller and easier, it is making it more dangerous as the horses then go faster and faster over them, which obviously is then likely to cause falls. Years ago when the fences were bigger, the horses went more slowly, and therefore far more came home safely.

The RSPCA and the protestors are going to make it worse and worse over the years, but they will still blame the racing fraternity because they are clueless and won't listen to anyone who knows what they are talking about

This. It sticks in my throat to see them demand measures I KNOW will make the race more and more dangerous and then when they do demand even more of the same. Have actually got to the point when I wonder whether they are actually comfortable with those deaths knowing the public knee jerk reaction would be to ban the race which is really the RSPCAs end game. If it were true it would be pretty sick, and cynical, but I hope that I'm wrong and it's just me that's a cynic.

 

[Aarrghimpossiblepony]

You mean for the owners, and I agree with you. But the whole industry falls apart without betting revenues, which are absolutely enormous, so as an industry as a whole it's ALL about the money.

That's partly what makes it such a difficult debate as to whether it is right to knowingly cause the death of horses in the pursuit of profit. If it stopped, a lot of money would disappear out of the economy and right now, at least, we need it.

Although racing is all about the money, is that any worse than knowingly causing the death of horses for other reasons?

You've only got to read here or look around and you can see horses being ruined and ultimately ending up dead for the pursuit of people wanting to compete, people wanting a horse to ride ect. ect.

Fact is we all "use" horses, it doesn't make much difference to the horse as to why. And if they are lucky they get to be "used" by somebody knowledgeable/experienced/sometimes lucky enough to keep them healthy.

Targeting the GN doesn't simply come from a desire to stop one race, it also comes from a sizeable number of people who have a desire to stop all forms of racing and competing. And the more extreme, any horse ownership at all.

The argument about "money" is a smokescreen but an overdose of socialism in this country has led to there being a knee jerk reaction to any talk of "making money".

Horse owners should think very carefully about what these people will target next if they are successful with the GN. They are targeting a minority because they are cowards and they won't stop and it makes them feel good about themselves.

Whilst ignoring the examples of cruelty that you can see everyday in any town when you look at the conditions that so many dogs are kept in.

 

[vickyb]

Horse fatalities are part of the sport unfortunately. Horses don't just die racing in the GN, it happens in all racing, flat and jump. The GN is so high profile, and is probably the only race with such a high percentage of non-horsey viewers, and that's really the only reason it gets so much attention when there are fatalities. Because it is in the public eye at the time.

I don't know what can be done to make it 'safe enough' for the people that don't think it is safe enough - but personally I think racing (or eventing and showjumping for that matter) simply cannot be made 'safe'. So I enjoy all of them for what they are.

Catwithclaws, I agree with this so much. A few years ago I was watching racing from Aintree (can't remember if it was Autumn or Spring) and two horses were killed at one fence (on the GN course) - they fell at the same time but independently of each other, and they both broke their necks. I thought this was very unusual, but no mention was made about it in the press (other than the racing pages). If that had been the GN, just think of the outcry. I am not defending deaths in racing, but everything is whipped up so much by the press and animal groups. I usually enjoy the GN (and all racing) but I have come to dread it these days because of the endless post mortems (no pun intended) and hand wringing that goes on afterwards.

 

[cptrayes]

Although racing is all about the money, is that any worse than knowingly causing the death of horses for other reasons?

You've only got to read here or look around and you can see horses being ruined and ultimately ending up dead for the pursuit of people wanting to compete, people wanting a horse to ride ect. ect.

Fact is we all "use" horses, it doesn't make much difference to the horse as to why. And if they are lucky they get to be "used" by somebody knowledgeable/experienced/sometimes lucky enough to keep them healthy.

Targeting the GN doesn't simply come from a desire to stop one race, it also comes from a sizeable number of people who have a desire to stop all forms of racing and competing. And the more extreme, any horse ownership at all.

The argument about "money" is a smokescreen but an overdose of socialism in this country has led to there being a knee jerk reaction to any talk of "making money".

Horse owners should think very carefully about what these people will target next if they are successful with the GN. They are targeting a minority because they are cowards and they won't stop and it makes them feel good about themselves.

Whilst ignoring the examples of cruelty that you can see everyday in any town when you look at the conditions that so many dogs are kept in.

I do not, and never will, accept the "worse things happen to horses" argument. Two wrongs have never, in my book, made a right.

Neither do I accept that other sports knowingly kill horses. Jump racing has a 2% of horses per year mortality rate on the track and another possible/probable 2% back at home from injuries received during a race.

No other equine sport has rates anywhere near as high, and if they did (BE for example would kill about one horse per day of competition at each venue if it did) then I believe that they would cease to run. It is the proportion of deaths that for me makes national hunt racing "predictable" and other sports "an accident". The only thing not predictable about NH deaths is the names of the horses which will be dead at the end of the season. The numbers are predictable at one in 250 starters, according to the industry's own published statistics.

I don't watch racing. I cannot abide seeing the utterly exhausted, staring eyed, spaced out horses at the end, never mind the green tents during the race. If the cameras stayed on the downed horse, as they would in any other sport (or go to a commentator) then I reckon that televised racing would probably also end. It only persists because the race moves on and the cameras go with it, drastically lessening the impact on the viewer.

I guess you can tell I won't be either watching or betting on the National.

 

[FinalFurlong]

I think this is just an incredibly sensitive issue on both sides of the argument. No matter how many racing people defend the national, some people will always view it as cruel. It is the same as any other sensitive issue people will always have different opinions so we just need to say 'sod it' and get on with life.

We'll always as a forum disagree and have different opinions!

 

[winkles]

I agree wholeheartedly, cptrayes.

 

[Goodshipblossom]

If any horses die in this year's race, I really can't see it being run for much longer. I find it harder and harder to watch each year so I'm not sure how I'd feel if they did cancel it.

Having said that, it would be nice if the animal charities made as big a noise about the numerous other cases of animal abuse and neglect out there.

 

[Bojingles]

Targeting the GN doesn't simply come from a desire to stop one race, it also comes from a sizeable number of people who have a desire to stop all forms of racing and competing. And the more extreme, any horse ownership at all.

The argument about "money" is a smokescreen but an overdose of socialism in this country has led to there being a knee jerk reaction to any talk of "making money".

Horse owners should think very carefully about what these people will target next if they are successful with the GN. They are targeting a minority because they are cowards and they won't stop and it makes them feel good about themselves.

Good GRIEF, even by HHO standards this is an exceptionally offensive post. I myself am a horse owner and have no desire to stop all forms of racing, competing and ownership. I do, however, viscerally dislike racing for its methods, the entire industry and, not least, wastage. No, I am not a racing expert, but neither am I a COMPLETE idiot, as many so-called experts, not least on this thread, would have it. I don't need to dislike racing to feel good about myself, nor do I need to be browbeaten by offensive idiots who would call me a coward. Smokescreen, indeed; you should know, and I often think this forum could do with an "overdose of socialism." Rarely have I been made so angry on this forum; I usually just ignore morons but this has set new standards of ignorance and insult.

I do not, and never will, accept the "worse things happen to horses" argument. Two wrongs have never, in my book, made a right.

Neither do I accept that other sports knowingly kill horses. Jump racing has a 2% of horses per year mortality rate on the track and another possible/probable 2% back at home from injuries received during a race.

No other equine sport has rates anywhere near as high, and if they did (BE for example would kill about one horse per day of competition at each venue if it did) then I believe that they would cease to run. It is the proportion of deaths that for me makes national hunt racing "predictable" and other sports "an accident". The only thing not predictable about NH deaths is the names of the horses which will be dead at the end of the season. The numbers are predictable at one in 250 starters, according to the industry's own published statistics.

I don't watch racing. I cannot abide seeing the utterly exhausted, staring eyed, spaced out horses at the end, never mind the green tents during the race. If the cameras stayed on the downed horse, as they would in any other sport (or go to a commentator) then I reckon that televised racing would probably also end. It only persists because the race moves on and the cameras go with it, drastically lessening the impact on the viewer.

I guess you can tell I won't be either watching or betting on the National.

CPTrayes, thank HEAVENS for the voice of reason.

 

[Mrs B]

I myself am a horse owner and have no desire to stop all forms of racing, competing and ownership. I do, however, viscerally dislike racing for its methods, the entire industry and, not least, wastage.

I think the poster was referring to organisations like PETA in their post, who most certainly DO want to stop all forms of racing and competing and the more extreme members from owning animals of any sort.

As for 'viscerally disliking racing', that's your prerogative.

 

[Bojingles]

As for 'viscerally disliking racing', that's your prerogative.

Quite, and I don't seek to impose it on others or insult those who hold different views.

 

[Honeylight]

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.....[/QUOTE

Yes & looking through Timeform & books on the race around 36 horses lost their lives between 1930 & 1989 & 22 since the RSPCA "made it safer".
I expect to see more fallers this year at the first as they have shortened the run to the first, jockeys will still go fast but will have less time to get their horses balanced for the jump. I hope I am proved wrong, if I am not the end of the race is nigh.
Sorry but the RSPCA don't seem to know a lot of practical horse sense. They should spend their resources policing exportation of live animals & neglected horses & ponies. That's what they are there for, not worrying about a small percentage of well looked after horses who are killed in racing.

 

[Maesfen]

I see we've moved right away from the actual opening topic, how typical.

 

[Mrs B]

Quite, and I don't seek to impose it on others or insult those who hold different views.

I can't see how she/he insulted you? In fact, what you wrote was rather 'pot calling kettle black'. You chose to think the reference she/he was making included you personally. IMO, rather an overreaction on your part.

FWIW, I agree with Maesfen's first reply.

 

[rascal]

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 agree with this, I was a huge Red Rum fan but he was a heavier horse than a lot of the weedy tbs today. I also think there have been more accidents since it was "improved". I used to like racing as do most of my family, but not anymore.

 

[Foxhunter49]

What was said is the truth and not crass as I read it.

As for the fact that the race is dangerous so is any form of horse sport. Jump racing might hold slightly higher risks than a lot but, some like the adrenaline fix.

Over the years I would bet that more horses have been killed on the Mildmay course which is flat and faster than the National fences.

Fences this year have been altered in the way that they are built. The lower part is now artificial birch with furze on the top - no vertical post lower down.

As said more horses have been killed since the course was made 'safer' because it allows for more speed into them.

My argument is that if you support the animal rights groups, including the RSPCA, then they will not only get this race banned and then they will move onto banning other equestrian sports.

 

[Elf On A Shelf]

If you look at the times of Red Rum and of todays race there isn't a great deal of difference overall. Today the first lap is much much faster than in Rummy's day and the second slower. It used to be that you hunted for a circuit, no care for position you just needed to survive. If you servived then you knew your horse could jump and then you raced the second circuit. The race is 4.5miles, theres no need to be going off like a bullet from a gun.

 

[AmyMay]

I agree with you, goodshipblossom.

 

[Aarrghimpossiblepony]

I think the poster was referring to organisations like PETA in their post, who most certainly DO want to stop all forms of racing and competing and the more extreme members from owning animals of any sort.

As for 'viscerally disliking racing', that's your prerogative.

I can't see how she/he insulted you? In fact, what you wrote was rather 'pot calling kettle black'. You chose to think the reference she/he was making included you personally. IMO, rather an overreaction on your part.

FWIW, I agree with Maesfen's first reply.

What was said is the truth and not crass as I read it.

As for the fact that the race is dangerous so is any form of horse sport. Jump racing might hold slightly higher risks than a lot but, some like the adrenaline fix.

Over the years I would bet that more horses have been killed on the Mildmay course which is flat and faster than the National fences.

Fences this year have been altered in the way that they are built. The lower part is now artificial birch with furze on the top - no vertical post lower down.

As said more horses have been killed since the course was made 'safer' because it allows for more speed into them.

My argument is that if you support the animal rights groups, including the RSPCA, then they will not only get this race banned and then they will move onto banning other equestrian sports.

Thank you.

Why the poster chose to see themselves as amongst "the sizeable number" only they know.

But to deny they exist is burying your head in the sand. Just out on a gentle hack some years ago I was accosted and called all sorts for simply riding.

And do people think the anti hunt lot went quietly home and hung up their banners and took up knitting?

 

[winkles]

If any horses die in this year's race, I really can't see it being run for much longer. I find it harder and harder to watch each year so I'm not sure how I'd feel if they did cancel it.

I think we can all agree with this, no matter what side of the fence we sit on. None of us want horses to die.

Racing's constant referral to horse fatalities as part of the sport when we know why they occur is awful and part of the problem. As is the constant blaming of the RSPCA and protesters for making the race more and more unsafe. Yes, this may well be true, but the competitors still choose to run in it. When a horse dies, the attitude is far more "see, I told you the RSPCA knew nothing", rather than "this is awful, racing must be made safer."

cptrayes is right, this would never be acceptable in other forms of competition, and I think that is what grates on non-racers (albeit, equestrian non-racers). The 'worse things happen' viewpoint is disgustingly slimy. Worse things are always happening, about any situation in any place. That does not make one more acceptable than the other.

FWIW this was never meant to be about the RSPCA.