petition to make the Grand National safer

Status
Not open for further replies.
Appymadness said:
Approximately 18,000 foals are born into the closely-related British and Irish racing industries each year, yet only around 40% go on to become racers. Those horses who do not make the grade may be slaughtered for meat or repeatedly change hands in a downward spiral of neglect. Of those horses who do go on to race, around 420 are raced to death every year.

This is the best petition to sign.
http://www.animalaid.org.uk/h/f/ACTIVE/petition/?id=10&campaign=horse
Click to expand...

What about the New Forest and Welsh pony foals who suffer the same fate as these each year? I have a friend on FB who was at some sale today and ponies of all types, exmoors I think it might mainly have been but I could be wrong, were fetching about £40 a head.

Also, I hope that as a supporter of Animal Aid, you do not keep pets, especially do not use your horses in sport or for recreational purposes, I hope you are vegan, do not eat meat, milk, honey, sit on a leather sofa or saddle...

Animal Aid want racing banned. Yeah, GREAT idea.
 
Teagreen. what a sensible answer, but these people really don't want to know they just want to ruin everyones enjoyment with horses. They really don't care about animal welfare as you have said youngsters going for meat money, like on Dartmore, never mind NF. They want you to be just as miserable minded as they are. But Snail Racing, would they get eaten at the end???:):):):)
 
Can't believe some of the replies in this thread, the OP makes a non-confrontational post and loads of so-called "adults" respond with personal insults and bile. Some of you really need to get off your high horses!!
 
BRITISH HORSERACING AUTHORITY’S DIRECTOR OF EQUINE SCIENCE AND WELFARE STATEMENT ON THE GRAND NATIONAL

Professor Tim Morris, Director of Equine Science and Welfare, said:

“The Grand National was attended by over 70,000 people and watched by tens of millions, many of whom would have had a bet, or taken part in a sweepstake. Any one of those millions of people would undoubtedly have been very saddened by the accidents, seen clearly on television, which led to the death of Ornais and Dooneys Gate during the race.

“Racing is a sport with risk, and the Grand National is the most testing race in Great Britain; that is why it has captured the imagination of so many for over a century. Racing works hard to reduce the risk. Some risk to horses is inherent in the sport, as it is to differing degrees in the life of a horse in any environment. Racing is open and transparent about these risks, publishes information about equine fatalities on the Authority’s website, and works to further reduce these risks [see Notes for Editors 1 and 4]

“All those involved in racing do care for their horses. At the race itself there are more than 150 specialist staff who are completely focused on making the race as safe as possible, so there is no shortage of effort or expense in this respect. [see Notes for Editors 2 for detail]. This care and concern is why Horseracing has for many years also worked closely with legitimate animal welfare charities, such as the RSPCA and World Horse Welfare. The role of both these organisations is to be critical and raise concerns with us and, if they are not happy with the action we take, there is no doubt they would be very public about it, as anyone would expect from a legitimate animal welfare organisation.

“Beyond this proper concern for horse welfare, much of the prompting on this issue to the media has been driven by Animal Aid. Animal Aid are not an animal welfare group, as many newspapers and news channels have been misinformed. They are an animal rights organisation against the use of animals for sport and leisure. As such their clearly stated agenda is to ban racing. [see Notes for Editors 3].

“If racing then didn’t exist, this would have a huge impact on tens of thousands of thoroughbreds across the UK; it would effectively mean that owners and trainers wouldn’t be able to look after their horses and the breed would disappear; as would a large part of British life.

“Such Animal Rights campaigners are entitled to their views, but the overwhelming majority of the British public take an animal welfare viewpoint as to how they deal responsibly with their obligations to animals kept as pets, raised for food and used in sport and leisure. They do not want to stop eating meat, keeping pets, riding horses or watching racing, but do want risks to animals be reduced to the minimum.

“So it is clear there are two quite distinct issues here. The first issue is how we can realistically reduce the risk in the Grand National further, and that is the job of the BHA, Animal Welfare groups and Aintree Racecourse. We do listen to those concerns that have been raised and will continue to strive to reduce risk, whether that is in specific relation to the Grand National or in any other race. The second issue is the wider ethical debate of whether it is right for humans to use animals in leisure, sport and for food. Neither of these issues is served by the emotive language and misleading information from Animal Rights campaigners.

“The BHA would also like to clarify the following points:

“The Grand National is a difficult race and was run this year on an unseasonably warm day. Because of that, all the jockeys had been instructed prior to the race to dismount from their horses as soon as the race was over in order to allow the team of handlers and vets to get water to the horses so as to prevent over-heating (which is a main cause of collapse), as it is when people run and race over long distances. This preventative action happened to all the horses, not just the winner, and shows welfare improvements in action. No horse collapsed.

“The introduction of the run-outs, which were used for the first time this year, were introduced in 2009, the year after the horse McKelvey died. They were introduced after much discussion, which included the RSPCA, as a welfare measure to allow loose horses to be able to go round the obstacles, and not, as has been reported, to prevent the race from being voided. Again this is welfare in action.

“The winning jockey, Jason Maguire has been banned for exceeding the strict limits which we place on the use of the whip. The horse was carefully examined after the race and there is no evidence of an abuse. Such abuses are dealt with very seriously and, as we do at the end of every season, we will certainly be reviewing our Rules to ensure that we have the balance right between appropriate use of the whip and controlling inappropriate, unacceptable use.”

Notes to Editors:

(1) Including this year, in 12 runnings of the Grand National since 2000, 479 horses have raced in the Grand National. 8 horses have been fatally injured, and we openly report this, as do the media including the BBC. Put another way, 471 horses went home after the race. In addition, in the seven years previous to this year’s running of the race, just three horses had lost their lives competing in the race – Hear The Echo, McKelvey and Tyneandthyneagain. McKelvey and Tyneandthyneagain were both injured when running riderless.

(2) 20 horse catchers; at least two fence attendants at each of the National’s 16 fences; four stewards to inspect the course; two British Horseracing Authority Course Inspectors; 10 vets; 50 ground staff; and 35 ground repair staff

(3) In an interview with Nicky Campbell three years ago in advance of the Grand National, Andrew Tyler, the head of Animal Aid, was put on the spot by Nicky Campbell and he admitted that he wanted racing banned. He did the same last year ahead of the Grand National in an interview with BBC Scotland.

(4) For more information on Equine Welfare, including injuries and fatalities, please see:

http://www.britishhorseracing.com/resources/equine-science-and-welfare/horsewelfare.asp

http://www.britishhorseracing.com/resources/equine-science-and-welfare/injuries-fatalities.asp
 
There is no point trying to have a sane debate with someone who compares jump racing with bullfighting except to make the small point that on the racecourse everything humanly possible is done to avoid death whereas in the bullring it is fully intended to bring it about.
Click to expand...

Alastair Down read this thread, then. And came to the same conclusion as me - sane debate not possible with some people.
 
teagreen said:
What about the New Forest and Welsh pony foals who suffer the same fate as these each year? I have a friend on FB who was at some sale today and ponies of all types, exmoors I think it might mainly have been but I could be wrong, were fetching about £40 a head.

Also, I hope that as a supporter of Animal Aid, you do not keep pets, especially do not use your horses in sport or for recreational purposes, I hope you are vegan, do not eat meat, milk, honey, sit on a leather sofa or saddle...

Animal Aid want racing banned. Yeah, GREAT idea.
Click to expand...

I do keep pets, all of mine are rescue cases including New Forest & Exmoors, foals from fat horse meat farms. Dogs & cats from rescue, all now happy & loved & I don't do or have any of the above! ie are vegan, do not eat meat, milk, honey, sit on a leather sofa or saddle...:)
 
Appymadness said:
I do keep pets, all of mine are rescue cases including New Forest & Exmoors, foals from fat horse meat farms. Dogs & cats from rescue, all now happy & loved & I don't do or have any of the above! ie are vegan, do not eat meat, milk, honey, sit on a leather sofa or saddle...:)
Click to expand...

So do you support the banning of racing?
 
KautoStar1 said:
Every single argument about the legitimacy and morality of jump racing can be boiled down to one extremely uncomfortable, even disturbing, question and that is: Are you prepared to accept the death of horses as part of your sport?
Click to expand...
Yes, it is a well-written article - thoughtful and thought-provoking.

I do think the author, Alastair Down, may be guilty of creating a false dichotomy by arguing that people must choose between either accepting no deaths or accepting the status quo.

My personal belief is that there's a real difference between freak deaths which cannot possibly be anticipated (and hence mitigated by changing conditions) and deaths having a high enough probability to be expected to occur at a certain rate over the years. I consider the former acceptable - just as any other sport in which there are fatalities - and the latter unacceptable, or at least grounds for seeking changes.
 
alligator40 said:
i've seen things at markets that would make anyone's toes curl...

and i bet if they could talk, they'd swap their miserable lives for that of a pampered TB in a heartbeat.

and please, don't say "rescue"..you bought a pony at a market, its really just that.
Click to expand...

Never bought a pony from Market in my life, handed to me by RSPCA or it would've had a bullet in the head. So yep RESCUED!!!!!
 
fburton said:
Yes, it is a well-written article - thoughtful and thought-provoking.

I do think the author, Alastair Down, may be guilty of creating a false dichotomy by arguing that people must choose between either accepting no deaths or accepting the status quo.

My personal belief is that there's a real difference between freak deaths which cannot possibly be anticipated (and hence mitigated by changing conditions) and deaths having a high enough probability to be expected to occur at a certain rate over the years. I consider the former acceptable - just as any other sport in which there are fatalities - and the latter unacceptable, or at least grounds for seeking changes.
Click to expand...

Exactly. I think the arguments stating that horses die all the time, no matter what they are doing, is not a legitimate one to support keeping a race like the GN as it currently is. It's like saying you don't think it a good idea to do extra checks on a certain type of aircraft just because it crashes more often than another, because all types of aircraft crash.
 
But there ARE always changes being made in NH racing to make it safer for horse and jockey - a number of these have been listed numerous times in this thread. You just seem to be determined to ignore this fact. Ironically, one of the changes made for this year was the option to bypass a fence - meaning bodies didn't need to be moved so quickly from the track and that the public saw them on camera... causing this kneejerk reaction...
 
Another point which you anti GN people seem to be significantly missing -If the changes introduced in 2009 of bypassing the fences, and introducing a chute for loose horses had been implemented earlier, then three horses would not have been killed in the previous ten years, as they were all injured running loose.

The stats would then have been comparable to normal steeplechasing. Do you want to ban that? Changes have been made, and proved effective.

I genuinely think Ornais went wrong beforehand. I watched the rerun several times. His death was not GN specific, I think it would have happened on any course.

Dooney's gate was so unlucky, it was the way he got landed on. Horses get brought down in 'normal' racing as well, it's not relative to the field size, it happens in 12 runner fields.

I'm curious what you adamant anti - GN people do with your horses?
 
I am not anti Grand National at all. I just think there are even more things that should be done to make it safer.

I run a livery yard and also retrain ex racers for clients. I train them in dressage and show jumping. And I do occasionally take them on the gallops, but most of their retraining is done in an all weather arena and out hacking.
 
Doesn't the thread with the most replies get quoted in H&H each week. Look at the title of this thread - it will look as though the great majority are in favour of a petition which I'm sure is not the case. Somewhat ironic.
 
Wagtail said:
I am not anti Grand National at all. I just think there are even more things that should be done to make it safer.

I run a livery yard and also retrain ex racers for clients. I train them in dressage and show jumping. And I do occasionally take them on the gallops, but most of their retraining is done in an all weather arena and out hacking.
Click to expand...

So where do you get the ex-racers from - the yards? Are they flat or NH?

But you are being anti GN.

I think the ground was too quick, and they need to address that if it ever happens in future. The difficulty is the inconsistent UK weather. There would have been an equal outcry if the ground had been similar to when Red Marauder won. Ground conditions can change so fast, and sometimes it has to be accepted that there are limits to what can feasibly done without seeing into the future.

So - what would you have done/change to prevent Ornais fall, specifically? The trip, ground, field numbers had nothing to do with his demise.

What would you have done to prevent Dooney's Gate fall? Given you cannot avoid where a horse gets up once it has fallen.
 
Caledonia said:
So where do you get the ex-racers from - the yards? Are they flat or NH?

But you are being anti GN.

I think the ground was too quick, and they need to address that if it ever happens in future. The difficulty is the inconsistent UK weather. There would have been an equal outcry if the ground had been similar to when Red Marauder won. Ground conditions can change so fast, and sometimes it has to be accepted that there are limits to what can feasibly done without seeing into the future.

So - what would you have done/change to prevent Ornais fall, specifically? The trip, ground, field numbers had nothing to do with his demise.

What would you have done to prevent Dooney's Gate fall? Given you cannot avoid where a horse gets up once it has fallen.
Click to expand...

I knew there would be fatalities because of the ground and actually voiced this concern on here before the race. I have to question whether the ground did not have a part to play in Ornais's demise. There was no give on landing. It's amazing how much difference this makes. Horses tend to slide on landing when ground is wetter. I've been digging ragwort today and the ground is like concrete.

I always source my TBs via a friend of mine who owns race horses. She usually has some that are ready to go to the sales or failing that, her trainer has a few at his yard that he wants to let go. I get a very honest assessment of the horses temperament that way. I am not bothered about performance.

edit: I have read that Ornais was dead before reaching the ground. If so, how did he break his neck? I do not want to study the footage. Unless I was doing it in order to make the race safer, I don't think it is a healthy thing to do.
 
Last edited:
Caledonia said:
Dooney's gate was so unlucky, it was the way he got landed on. Horses get brought down in 'normal' racing as well, it's not relative to the field size, it happens in 12 runner fields.

I'm curious what you adamant anti - GN people do with your horses?
Click to expand...

I saw something similar happen (with same eventual result) in an 7 runner race. The max allowed number of runners would have been 18 for that race, so it wasn't a crowding issue, it was pure bad luck.

As for watering more, thinking about it, we might have had a lot more exhausted horses if the race had been run on soft ground in the temperature on Saturday. It was unusually hot for the time of year.
 
Wishful said:
I saw something similar happen (with same eventual result) in an 7 runner race. The max allowed number of runners would have been 18 for that race, so it wasn't a crowding issue, it was pure bad luck.

As for watering more, thinking about it, we might have had a lot more exhausted horses if the race had been run on soft ground in the temperature on Saturday. It was unusually hot for the time of year.
Click to expand...

But that is the thing with racing. Sometimes it IS just bad luck. However, the more runners there are, the greater the odds of being killed. That is just common logic. Just because sometimes people get killed in car crashes with perfectly road worthy cars, does not justify not improving safety standards.
 
Wagtail said:
I knew there would be fatalities because of the ground and actually voiced this concern on here before the race. I have to question whether the ground did not have a part to play in Ornais's demise. There was no give on landing. It's amazing how much difference this makes. Horses tend to slide on landing when ground is wetter. I've been digging ragwort today and the ground is like concrete.

I always source my TBs via a friend of mine who owns race horses. She usually has some that are ready to go to the sales or failing that, her trainer has a few at his yard that he wants to let go. I get a very honest assessment of the horses temperament that way. I am not bothered about performance.
Click to expand...

Ah - you probably get the slow ones then, those that don't have the leadership/competitive instinct, that's why you don't understand it exists. :p

Your field is not on a par to the racecourse. :confused:

Aintree watered on the run up to the race, but forecast rain failed to materialise, so they were left with quickish ground. You can't put a lot of water on the dry course immediately before horses run, that way you create false ground, which is infinitely more dangerous as it causes horses to break down, or slip up.

Ground would have made no difference to Ornais - he was gone before he fell, IMO. Even if you don't believe that, the way he fell was because he didn't take off at the fence, and landed on his head. The ground would have made no difference to that, it's purely chance.

But what would you do to prevent Dooney's Gate's demise in future?
 
Wishful said:
As for watering more, thinking about it, we might have had a lot more exhausted horses if the race had been run on soft ground in the temperature on Saturday. It was unusually hot for the time of year.
Click to expand...

Good point, Wishful. That was the case the year at Burghley when Caroline Pratt was killed. It was incredibly hot but with boggy ground underfoot. The riders wanted the course shortened, and the GJ didn't agree. It wasn't a pretty sight watching a few of those horses come home. Or not.
 
Caledonia said:
Ah - you probably get the slow ones then, those that don't have the leadership/competitive instinct, that's why you don't understand it exists. :p

Your field is not on a par to the racecourse. :confused:

Aintree watered on the run up to the race, but forecast rain failed to materialise, so they were left with quickish ground. You can't put a lot of water on the dry course immediately before horses run, that way you create false ground, which is infinitely more dangerous as it causes horses to break down, or slip up.

Ground would have made no difference to Ornais - he was gone before he fell, IMO. Even if you don't believe that, the way he fell was because he didn't take off at the fence, and landed on his head. The ground would have made no difference to that, it's purely chance.

But what would you do to prevent Dooney's Gate's demise in future?
Click to expand...

Please note I edited re Ornais before your response. Dooney's Gate would have had half the chance of being landed on if there were half the horses in the race. Simple. You cannot make racing 100% safe, obviously, but I believe we have a duty to make it as safe as we can.
 
Wagtail said:
But that is the thing with racing. Sometimes it IS just bad luck. However, the more runners there are, the greater the odds of being killed. That is just common logic. Just because sometimes people get killed in car crashes with perfectly road worthy cars, does not justify not improving safety standards.
Click to expand...

Let me get this straight, you are saying that it is simply statistically because there are more runners, more are likely to die, NOT because of overcrowding or too many on the field?

If so, that's the same as saying that the annual numbers of runners and races in the UK should be reduced to prevent as many fatalities.

You either think the deaths were due to overcrowding, which I'd like to see justified as it patently had no effect on Ornais, and little or none on Dooney's Gate. He was unlucky he fell in the lead. If he'd been at the back of the field we wouldn't be having this debate.

You can cater for disaster up to a certain degree, but after that it is simply and sadly chance.

You haven't given a valid response as to how you would have prevented these two deaths.
 
Wagtail said:
Please note I edited re Ornais before your response. Dooney's Gate would have had half the chance of being landed on if there were half the horses in the race. Simple. You cannot make racing 100% safe, obviously, but I believe we have a duty to make it as safe as we can.
Click to expand...

I didn't see the edit, what I've quoted is the same as you have written there?

Again - what do you propose is done to make the GN safer????

Halving the field would not have altered what happened to Dooney's Gate. They were spread out across Bechers. He got up underneath a landing horse, you cannot factor for that.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top