Jovian has died

He was a fragile foal carrier so could only be bred to negative mares. Perhaps there just wasn't enough interest in breeding from him, perhaps he was going to be sold etc etc. I think if it had been an emergency operation the statement would have said.

Very sad for his groom
 
Tiddlypom said:
Then don’t open and interact with a thread that offends you and on a matter that you do not wish to discuss further, just scroll on by 🤷‍♀️.
Click to expand...
I’ll tell you why: because this is completely uncalled for.

This thread is not ‘discussion’ of anything, don’t deceive yourselves, it is pure speculation, thoroughly mean allusions and insinuations:

Posts 2, 3, 4, 9, 26 - suggesting the operation on Jovian was ‘unnecessary’, ‘more to it than meets the eye’, possibly part of ongoing ‘abuse’ by his abusive handlers -

the horse’s owner and attending veterinary surgeon were of the opinion that the horse should be castrated. End of.

People who have never managed or handled this horse in their lives know better. Yeah, right.

And the post 19 insinuation beggars belief:
Whatever one thinks of Helgstrand, the stable lasses and travelling grooms of elite horses are incredibly closely bonded to them, they have to be, more so than human families in some cases - and this loss will be devastating to them. Perfect timing for some nasty little insinuation, eh? Well done.

Happily however, they are unlikely to read such malice, and easily able to identify it as spiteful, uninformed, rumour-mongering if they inadvertently do.

Over and out
 
Exasperated said:
I’ll tell you why: because this is completely uncalled for.

This thread is not ‘discussion’ of anything, don’t deceive yourselves, it is pure speculation, thoroughly mean allusions and insinuations:

Posts 2, 3, 4, 9, 26 - suggesting the operation on Jovian was ‘unnecessary’, ‘more to it than meets the eye’, possibly part of ongoing ‘abuse’ by his abusive handlers -

the horse’s owner and attending veterinary surgeon were of the opinion that the horse should be castrated. End of.

People who have never managed or handled this horse in their lives know better. Yeah, right.

And the post 19 insinuation beggars belief:
Whatever one thinks of Helgstrand, the stable lasses and travelling grooms of elite horses are incredibly closely bonded to them, they have to be, more so than human families in some cases - and this loss will be devastating to them. Perfect timing for some nasty little insinuation, eh? Well done.

Happily however, they are unlikely to read such malice, and easily able to identify it as spiteful, uninformed, rumour-mongering if they inadvertently do.

Over and out
Click to expand...


Post 19 was a direct response to your attack
 
Last edited:
Exasperated said:
I’ll tell you why: because this is completely uncalled for.

This thread is not ‘discussion’ of anything, don’t deceive yourselves, it is pure speculation, thoroughly mean allusions and insinuations:

Posts 2, 3, 4, 9, 26 - suggesting the operation on Jovian was ‘unnecessary’, ‘more to it than meets the eye’, possibly part of ongoing ‘abuse’ by his abusive handlers -

the horse’s owner and attending veterinary surgeon were of the opinion that the horse should be castrated. End of.

People who have never managed or handled this horse in their lives know better. Yeah, right.

And the post 19 insinuation beggars belief:
Whatever one thinks of Helgstrand, the stable lasses and travelling grooms of elite horses are incredibly closely bonded to them, they have to be, more so than human families in some cases - and this loss will be devastating to them. Perfect timing for some nasty little insinuation, eh? Well done.

Happily however, they are unlikely to read such malice, and easily able to identify it as spiteful, uninformed, rumour-mongering if they inadvertently do.

Over and out
Click to expand...
No, most of us do not like Helgstrand. Some of us probably wonder why people who love horses would want to work for him, particularly in light of Operation X and how he rides in public if nothing else. Some of us are even relieved that the horse will no longer have to live this lifestyle. And yes we are allowed to speculate about the very odd decision to apparently put a horse through an elective operation presumably under GA given his age and size within days of a long stressful journey and competition, and the management that led up to the decision. He is a public figure and he puts his horses in the public gaze. What do you expect?
 
Burnttoast said:
No, most of us do not like Helgstrand. Some of us probably wonder why people who love horses would want to work for him, particularly in light of Operation X and how he rides in public if nothing else. Some of us are even relieved that the horse will no longer have to live this lifestyle. And yes we are allowed to speculate about the very odd decision to apparently put a horse through an elective operation presumably under GA given his age and size within days of a long stressful journey and competition, and the management that led up to the decision. He is a public figure and he puts his horses in the public gaze. What do you expect?
Click to expand...

I wondered about those who work there
 
Helgstrand has said after long and careful consideration they decided to have him gelded, a problem arose during the procedure he could not be saved despite every effort by the vets
 
tristars said:
I wondered about those who work there
Click to expand...

Burnttoast said:
I couldn't have it on my conscience, I know that much.
Click to expand...

There are people all across the globe who work at stables, zoos, farms, aquariums, who hate where they work but don't quit, because they don't want to abandon the animals to their fate with someone who might not try to make their days that bit better. They feel the guilt but they work there anyway, because guilt doesn't make the animals lives any happier.

For a long time, I worked at a yard which (though nowhere near the levels of Helgstrand) was not a nice place for the horses or the people there. Obviously, I wouldn't have started working there if I knew what it was like, but, once I was in, I was in. I dreamed of leaving - as did all of my co-workers - but I couldn't leave the horses behind. I did my best to make their lives a little happier - scratches in my lunch break, an attempt at enrichment when the boss wasn't looking to tell me to take it down, it made the stables look untidy - and I came home crying, and I did that same routine again and again and again and again because I really loved those horses.

I hope, for both your sakes, that you never experience it: the heartbreak of watching the horses you love deteriorate whilst being powerless to get them out of that environment; the constant and unbearable guilt that still hasn't faded, even though I now own one of those horses, and can give him the life all of them deserved.

It is agony and I wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy.
 
sbloom said:
Helgstrand was first censured in 2015, I would imagine most of the current staff knew his reputation before they started.
Click to expand...
Jovian's groom has worked there since 2011.

I get that people have understandably very strong opinions about Helgstrand. However, the groom in question has just lost a horse who, from the sounds of things, was the love of her life. "Discuss" all you want, but surely basic human courtesy would suggest that this is not the kindest time to speculate about people who have no say over how things are done at Helgstrand?
 
stangs said:
There are people all across the globe who work at stables, zoos, farms, aquariums, who hate where they work but don't quit, because they don't want to abandon the animals to their fate with someone who might not try to make their days that bit better. They feel the guilt but they work there anyway, because guilt doesn't make the animals lives any happier.

For a long time, I worked at a yard which (though nowhere near the levels of Helgstrand) was not a nice place for the horses or the people there. Obviously, I wouldn't have started working there if I knew what it was like, but, once I was in, I was in. I dreamed of leaving - as did all of my co-workers - but I couldn't leave the horses behind. I did my best to make their lives a little happier - scratches in my lunch break, an attempt at enrichment when the boss wasn't looking to tell me to take it down, it made the stables look untidy - and I came home crying, and I did that same routine again and again and again and again because I really loved those horses.

I hope, for both your sakes, that you never experience it: the heartbreak of watching the horses you love deteriorate whilst being powerless to get them out of that environment; the constant and unbearable guilt that still hasn't faded, even though I now own one of those horses, and can give him the life all of them deserved.

It is agony and I wouldn't wish it on my worst
Click to expand...


Don't bother hoping. Already been there, seen things no young person should have to

Have studied extensively the training and treatment of animal, mainly horses

Recently accidently read the black horse inside coolmore, written by someone who worked there. didn't need to , I've seen too much before, for many years
 
I do totally understand what you're saying, Stangs. But I suppose it then opens up the debate about whether if all reasonable people were to boycott places where the welfare was lower than one might hope, maybe it would put those who treat horses badly out of business because they'd have no grooms to do the necessary work - or better still, force them to change their ways for the better.

Unfortunately, what would likely actually happen is they would just employ people who didn't give two hoots about the horses but would still do the work, and so the horses would indeed be worse off.

Pressure for complete and revolutionary change has to come from the governing bodies, as always. Until then, it seems everyone is stuck in the machine, so to speak. And if the governing bodies won't do anything impactful enough, we must keep openly talking about it where we can. As we are.
 
PurpleSpots said:
I do totally understand what you're saying, Stangs. But I suppose it then opens up the debate about whether if all reasonable people were to boycott places where the welfare was lower than one might hope, maybe it would put those who treat horses badly out of business because they'd have no grooms to do the necessary work - or better still, force them to change their ways for the better.

Unfortunately, what would likely actually happen is they would just employ people who didn't give two hoots about the horses but would still do the work, and so the horses would indeed be worse off.
Click to expand...
The problem is that grooms are generally not paid well and they often rely on their employers for accomodation (both theirs and their horses, as the case may be). From that position of financial insecurity, I don't think you can blame people for not wanting to risk being unemployed for the sake of a boycott, especially when they will probably be quickly replaced.

It's the people with the money, the owners and the major stables, that we really need to be holding to account.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top