Grand National meeting.

bonny said:
I stopped commenting on this thread yesterday because it was going round in circles and it felt like nobody had anything useful to add to the discussion. I’ve no idea why you felt it necessary to add the above, it’s just made up by yourself for a silly dig at me and again adds nothing meaningfuli
Click to expand...

I responsed to someone else criticising another form member unfairly for what she responded to a post of yours Bonny.

I was supporting another poster not having a go at you, you can write whatever you like.
 
Fred66 said:
If we didn’t have the relationship we do with horses then their only purpose would be to be in the food chain. In the grand scheme of things then the horses who die in sport have a massively better life and death than the alternative.
Click to expand...
But that's not true. We can continue to have a relationship with horses without horse sport in its current form. There are horses doing conservation grazing and equine assisted therapy (that's another can of worms though) and kept by people who just like them, quite apart from breed-interested people and feral horses and ponies. And if the life of a meat animal in this or similar countries is worse than one in horse sport that's down to the producers. I'm not sure a few years spent eating with other horses and one bad day at the end of it is worse than years jammed between hand and leg, travelling long distances regularly, being put in high-stress atmospheres regularly, being stabled for lengthy periods, undergoing potentially many medical procedures to keep them going - and that's without including the Helgstrands of this world.
 
Peglo said:
The horses who run it themselves? No I don’t think I can.

But I guess folk could argue that the advancement in equine veterinary practices, medicine and research thanks to the massive money that comes from racing is benefitting not just race horses but leisure horses too. money that doesn’t come from any other source of equine sports as it’s just not there.

Does that make it morally ok? 🤷🏼‍♀️ I don’t know.
Am I thankful that my horses could benefit from it? Yeah I am if I’m being honest.
Click to expand...
The massive investment in veterinary research from the racing industry, also benefits human athletes.
 
Burnttoast said:
But that's not true. We can continue to have a relationship with horses without horse sport in its current form. There are horses doing conservation grazing and equine assisted therapy (that's another can of worms though) and kept by people who just like them, quite apart from breed-interested people and feral horses and ponies. And if the life of a meat animal in this or similar countries is worse than one in horse sport that's down to the producers. I'm not sure a few years spent eating with other horses and one bad day at the end of it is worse than years jammed between hand and leg, travelling long distances regularly, being put in high-stress atmospheres regularly, being stabled for lengthy periods, undergoing potentially many medical procedures to keep them going - and that's without including the Helgstrands of this world.
Click to expand...
Do you subscribe to the PETA view that all animal ownership is slavery? (That’s not meant to be an accusatory question, but you do sound very against any unnatural methods of keep).
 
Burnttoast said:
^^^ this. Given their lifespans it's almost criminal that the thoroughbred industry breaks so many individuals when they are the equivalent of adolescents, or at conception in the case of ecvm, and then mostly expects other people to take on the expense and potential heartbreak of the next 15 years (or whatever) like they're doing us a favour.
Click to expand...
Yes, that is so true !

When the owner of my ex racer gave him to me, once he had won over 100'000.- francs in NH in France and was useless to him because he had
broken down, he expected me to be greatful !

He was doing me a favor, he could have as easily gone to the meat chain, we eat horses meat here.

I love the horse and i woudn't give him back but frankly, i have no respect for such people !
 
Clodagh said:
Do you subscribe to the PETA view that all animal ownership is slavery? (That’s not meant to be an accusatory question, but you do sound very against any unnatural methods of keep).
Click to expand...
No, not at all, but my main aim with the animals I have is keep them in a way that means they can express natural behaviours and make their own choices, even if imperfectly - to be honest it gives me more pleasure to see an animal I'm responsible for being itself than anything else. So I hate seeing chickens (particularly rescues!) shut up in a 2x3m slabbed run pecking the hell out of each other in the same way I hate seeing horses in individual electric pens or stables for no good reason (and I can't think of many good reasons). I rode and put up with other people's choices (because I had to if I wanted to ride) until relatively recently but my feelings about this have been changing for some time.
 
The post mortem results on Celebre D’Allen have been released.

Celebre D’Allen post-mortem findings | British Horseracing Authority

www.britishhorseracing.com www.britishhorseracing.com

The findings of the post-mortem state that the exercise-associated episode experienced by the horse after the race had concluded by the time of death.

However, a severe bacterial respiratory infection (pleuropneumonia) had occurred post-race which led to the horse’s deterioration on Monday evening, with the subsequent onset of sepsis or endotoxaemia (the release of harmful substances into the bloodstream from bacteria) likely to have been a key factor in the cause of death.

Cross posted.
 
Post Morton results for Celebre D’Allen

The report of the post-mortem carried out on Celebre D’Allen have been shared with the trainer and owner, who have granted permission for the key findings to be published by the British Horseracing Authority (BHA).

The post-mortem was carried out by Rossdales Veterinary Surgeons of Newmarket.

The findings of the post-mortem state that the exercise-associated episode experienced by the horse after the race had concluded by the time of death.

However, a severe bacterial respiratory infection (pleuropneumonia) had occurred post-race which led to the horse’s deterioration on Monday evening, with the subsequent onset of sepsis or endotoxaemia (the release of harmful substances into the bloodstream from bacteria) likely to have been a key factor in the cause of death.

Blood tests taken from the day of the race indicate that the infection had not been present in the horse on raceday, and was therefore developed after the race.

Further bloods taken on the Monday indicated a severely compromised immune system. These indications had not been present in the bloods taken on the day of the race. This indicates that this issue emerged subsequent to the race and the exercise-associated episode.

The heart pathology found no issues which are likely to be significant in the death of the horse.

As stated previously, the circumstances around the fatality – as is the case with any fatal injury – are being reviewed in detail. The post-mortem forms one part of this process. In addition, the Grand National is always reviewed in detail after every running of the race by the BHA and the Jockey Club.
 
ycbm said:
This argument always goes the same way. "There's more suffering in livery stables".

If you have a problem that needs solving, you pick off the outliers first. In the case of the use of horses by people, jump racing is the outlier by a very, very big margin. And I will repeat myself until the whataboutery stops (which means forever) , that eventing would not survive if there was an average higher than one death for every weekend of cross country at any one venue. Some weekends ten or more horses would die across the various venues, can you imagine the outcry?

And as well as justifiably patting itself on the back for the increased efforts to rehome, racing needs to give itself a good hard stare in the face about why such a huge proportion of horses sold out of training are already broken, many beyond repair.
.
Click to expand...
But death and suffering are not the same thing. Nor is death and cruelty. Whilst no one likes to see a horse die it doesn’t automatically correlate with the activity being cruel.

If you did a Pareto analysis of suffering / cruelty in horses and leisure horses were top then that is where you start. Look at ensuring that owners / keepers have the knowledge to care appropriately for the horse, that if they don’t then it must be kept at an establishment that does or that you employ someone with the necessary knowledge and license. License livery yards and ensure that they have to undertake regular CPD and that spot checks happen. It would not preclude people from having DIY but the Yard Owner would ultimately be responsible for the welfare of animals on their yard.
Similarly if you are judged to have the knowledge to keep your horse yourself you should undertake CPD to ensure it is maintained.
 
Fred66 said:
But death and suffering are not the same thing. Nor is death and cruelty. Whilst no one likes to see a horse die it doesn’t automatically correlate with the activity being cruel.

If you did a Pareto analysis of suffering / cruelty in horses and leisure horses were top then that is where you start. Look at ensuring that owners / keepers have the knowledge to care appropriately for the horse, that if they don’t then it must be kept at an establishment that does or that you employ someone with the necessary knowledge and license. License livery yards and ensure that they have to undertake regular CPD and that spot checks happen. It would not preclude people from having DIY but the Yard Owner would ultimately be responsible for the welfare of animals on their yard.
Similarly if you are judged to have the knowledge to keep your horse yourself you should undertake CPD to ensure it is maintained.
Click to expand...


You carry on justifying the death rates in jump racing to yourself any way you like Fred, you won't change my mind and I doubt you will change anyone else's. Society and the western world are moving against using animals for the entertainment of humans.

And please can we stop the pretence that all horses in race training are well cared for and content?

In my last search for an off track TB I visited a low end trainer's yard and the misery those 11 depressed hatrack horses were radiating still gives me nightmares.
.
 
myheartinahoofbeat said:
Post Morton results for Celebre D’Allen

The report of the post-mortem carried out on Celebre D’Allen have been shared with the trainer and owner, who have granted permission for the key findings to be published by the British Horseracing Authority (BHA).

The post-mortem was carried out by Rossdales Veterinary Surgeons of Newmarket.

The findings of the post-mortem state that the exercise-associated episode experienced by the horse after the race had concluded by the time of death.

However, a severe bacterial respiratory infection (pleuropneumonia) had occurred post-race which led to the horse’s deterioration on Monday evening, with the subsequent onset of sepsis or endotoxaemia (the release of harmful substances into the bloodstream from bacteria) likely to have been a key factor in the cause of death.

Blood tests taken from the day of the race indicate that the infection had not been present in the horse on raceday, and was therefore developed after the race.

Further bloods taken on the Monday indicated a severely compromised immune system. These indications had not been present in the bloods taken on the day of the race. This indicates that this issue emerged subsequent to the race and the exercise-associated episode.

The heart pathology found no issues which are likely to be significant in the death of the horse.

As stated previously, the circumstances around the fatality – as is the case with any fatal injury – are being reviewed in detail. The post-mortem forms one part of this process. In addition, the Grand National is always reviewed in detail after every running of the race by the BHA and the Jockey Club.
Click to expand...


So he was raced beyond what his system was able to recover from. Raced to death.
.
 
Fred66 said:
Are you reading the same report ?
Click to expand...

Yes, he was raced until his system was so weak that it was unable to fight off a bacterial lung infection caught either by the depth of breathing required for the race or very shortly after the race.

This is the sort of thing other people meant when they talked earlier in the thread about "bottoming" a horse so that it never runs at its previous level again. Only this time it was taken so far that the horse died.
.
 
ycbm said:
Yes, he was raced until his system was so weak that it was unable to fight off a bacterial lung infection caught either by the depth of breathing required for the race or very shortly after the race.

This is the sort of thing other people meant when they talked earlier in the thread about "bottoming" a horse so that it never runs at its previous level again. Only this time it was taken so far that the horse died.
.
Click to expand...
I understand what you are getting at now, I'm not sure I can agree though.
 
minesadouble said:
I'm confused as to how you draw that conclusion from that report?
Click to expand...


The horse had a sound immune system immediately before the race and one that was compromised so badly immediately after the race that it was killed within a couple of days by a lung infection.

I don't know how anyone can't - actually doesn't want to - see that's related to the depth of breathing required for the race and the horse's utter exhaustion after it, which resulted in a jockey suspension.
.
 
In humans acute bouts of strenuous exercise can temporarily depress immune function. If that's also the case in horses, considering that, and also that he went to a strange yard after the race (quite apart from all the other horses at Aintree), it does seem possible that the run had a large role in his being unable to fight the infection.
 
ycbm said:
Yes, he was raced until his system was so weak that it was unable to fight off a bacterial lung infection caught either by the depth of breathing required for the race or very shortly after the race.

This is the sort of thing other people meant when they talked earlier in the thread about "bottoming" a horse so that it never runs at its previous level again. Only this time it was taken so far that the horse died.
.
Click to expand...
That is your interpretation and not what is written.

You decided this on Monday and despite the report not stating it you re choosing to interpret it to meet your opinion.

It clearly states that the exercise associated episode had concluded and that the infection presented later.
 
ycbm said:
The horse had a sound immune system immediately before the race and one that was compromised so badly immediately after the race that it was killed within a couple of days by a lung infection.

I don't know how anyone can't - actually doesn't want to - see that's related to the depth of breathing required for the race and the horse's utter exhaustion after it, which resulted in a jockey suspension.
.
Click to expand...
It does not state this. It states that his immune system was fine after the race, that he recovered from the exercise induced episode and that his immune system only showed signs of being compromised on Monday.
 
Fred66 said:
That is your interpretation and not what is written.

You decided this on Monday and despite the report not stating it you re choosing to interpret it to meet your opinion.

It clearly states that the exercise associated episode had concluded and that the infection presented later.
Click to expand...

You carry on believing that a horse that is bottomed in a race whose immune system collapses the day afterwards under the stress of some lung bacteria can't possibly have died because it was raced too hard even though the jockey was punished for racing it too hard, Fred. The industry can always breed some more to take his place. And all the others that will die in future races.
.
 
Fred66 said:
It does not state this. It states that his immune system was fine after the race, that he recovered from the exercise induced episode and that his immune system only showed signs of being compromised on Monday.
Click to expand...
I genuinely don't understand how there can be so little understanding into the probability that the exhaustive episode the horse experienced bears no correlation to the sepsis.
 
Last edited:
Amymay Again said:
I'm genuinely don't understand how there can be so little understanding into the probability that the exhaustive episode the horse experienced bears no correlation to the sepsis.
Click to expand...
Possibility not probability. Tests showed:

Saturday he was severely exhausted, no infection, immune system ok

Sunday recovered from severe exhaustion, no infection, immune system ok and moved to local livery yard

Monday presented with severe respiratory infection and immune system compromised

Whilst it is possible that despite veterinary evidence showing he had recovered that actually he hadn’t, it is equally possible that the infection was of a type and severity that would have had the same outcome even if he hadn’t raced.
 
I do get the link, but I think the same risk could be applied to any horse post strenuous- race.
I run Ultramathons and it's a known fact that you're more susceptible to illness after running an Ultra due to compromised immune function.
I would expect most horses who have just covered the Grand National distance would have little more to give at the finish.
 
minesadouble said:
I do get the link, but I think the same risk could be applied to any horse post strenuous- race.
I run Ultramathons and it's a known fact that you're more susceptible to illness after running an Ultra due to compromised immune function.
I would expect most horses who have just covered the Grand National distance would have little more to give at the finish.
Click to expand...
Is the point here not that he had little more to give well ahead of the finish and was pushed to finish anyway?
 
Fred66 said:
That is your interpretation and not what is written.

You decided this on Monday and despite the report not stating it you re choosing to interpret it to meet your opinion.

It clearly states that the exercise associated episode had concluded and that the infection presented later.
Click to expand...
PMs are always open to interpretation. They state what they find, it is up to us to figure out how those things came to be.

What we have here is a previously fit and healthy horse who collapsed post race, recovered from that “episode” but contracted an infection and succumbed very shortly afterwards.

The rate of his deterioration clearly shows a horse with a grossly compromised immune system.

As the horse presented healthily before the race, it’s either awful luck, or a clear example of cause and effect.

You can’t tell anyone they are wrong or interpreting it incorrectly, because the PM doesn’t state what caused the infection or comprised immune system.
 
equinerebel said:
PMs are always open to interpretation. They state what they find, it is up to us to figure out how those things came to be.

What we have here is a previously fit and healthy horse who collapsed post race, recovered from that “episode” but contracted an infection and succumbed very shortly afterwards.

The rate of his deterioration clearly shows a horse with a grossly comprised immune system.

As the horse presented healthily before the race, it’s either awful luck, or a clear example of cause and effect.

You can’t tell anyone they are wrong or interpreting it incorrectly, because the PM doesn’t state what caused the infection or comprised immune system.
Click to expand...
Thankyou for putting this far better than me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top