Over2You
Well-Known Member
Thank you for helping to restore my faith of there being some humanity on this forum.
Peace and blessings to you.
The 2012 racing season has now killed 50 horses!!
- Thread starter Over2You
- Start date
Thank you for helping to restore my faith of there being some humanity on this forum.
Peace and blessings to you.
Over2You
Well-Known Member
Many thanks for your support. This is a subject I feel very strongly about, and I cannot believe how many of the pro-racers on here are willing to overlook all those deaths. It's sickening!!
Warmest wishes to you.
Moomin1
Well-Known Member
There are extremists on both sides of this argument in this thread and it's just going to go on and on.
Getting boring now.
Getting boring now.
Little Squirrel
Well-Known Member
It's was boring at the first post to be honest.
Birker2020
Well-Known Member
Well done to the OP for having the courage of her convictions. Its extremely hard to try to persuade others to your way of thinking or even to just voice your concerns when everyone else thinks differently.
I have been slated on this site before now and its not pleasant. I think the toll from deaths on british racecourse is totally digusting, 826 deaths in 1884 days. Totally unacceptable. Its all very well going on about horses going for slaughter abroad, etc, there are many worse things that happen to animals every day in our country, like shampoo in rabbits eyes for animal experiments, animals religiously slaughtered that can take 120 seconds of agony, terrified beyond belief, whilst they bleed out, chickens that enter the scalding tank whilst still alive as they lifted their heads and missed the blade which was meant to sever their heads etc, etc, etc. Lovely pleasant world we live in. If only we knew the horrors that remain hidden. However all this is irrelevant. We are talking about racehorses.
The OP and others have made valid points and I congratulate them on having the courage to do so. I also feel the same. It is not acceptable. Racehorse Deathwatch (Animal Aid) only record deaths on british racetracks. They do not record all the other deaths, horses that have broken down from racehorses and who are pts days after, horses that die on the gallops at home, fit and healthy horses that end up at market with no value after being passed from pillar to post, to be found that the novice rider they end up with that only wants to hack once a week cannot cope with their exuberance and fitness level and ends up terrified with them.
I strongly dislike racing and I think Animal Aid do a brilliant job in highlighting these areas of concerns to us. It is up to us to listen. yes there are deaths through other sports, but not as many as in racing.
I have been slated on this site before now and its not pleasant. I think the toll from deaths on british racecourse is totally digusting, 826 deaths in 1884 days. Totally unacceptable. Its all very well going on about horses going for slaughter abroad, etc, there are many worse things that happen to animals every day in our country, like shampoo in rabbits eyes for animal experiments, animals religiously slaughtered that can take 120 seconds of agony, terrified beyond belief, whilst they bleed out, chickens that enter the scalding tank whilst still alive as they lifted their heads and missed the blade which was meant to sever their heads etc, etc, etc. Lovely pleasant world we live in. If only we knew the horrors that remain hidden. However all this is irrelevant. We are talking about racehorses.
The OP and others have made valid points and I congratulate them on having the courage to do so. I also feel the same. It is not acceptable. Racehorse Deathwatch (Animal Aid) only record deaths on british racetracks. They do not record all the other deaths, horses that have broken down from racehorses and who are pts days after, horses that die on the gallops at home, fit and healthy horses that end up at market with no value after being passed from pillar to post, to be found that the novice rider they end up with that only wants to hack once a week cannot cope with their exuberance and fitness level and ends up terrified with them.
I strongly dislike racing and I think Animal Aid do a brilliant job in highlighting these areas of concerns to us. It is up to us to listen. yes there are deaths through other sports, but not as many as in racing.
Last edited by a moderator:
Alec Swan
...
You wont stop racing, but that you realise. Regarding the end of a relatively young animal's days, instead of complaining on here, tut-tutting, and telling all those who will listen, that the system is wrong, why don't you join me, and a few others, and lobby the animal charities, the Jockey Club and the BHS and put pressure upon Defra and Government, to re-open abattoirs and permit a dignified, humane and (importantly) a useful end to a life which is heading one way?
The Animal Charities, who are only really interested in appeasing a clamouring public, are responsible for the welfare and disposal mess that we're in, and it's time that they faced that fact.
Time for change, and you can either sit back and whinge, or complain to those who make the decisions which affect ours, and importantly, our horses lives. Your choice.
Alec.
ps. Applecart, this isn't aimed specifically at you, but is really for those who complain about welfare standards, and then do little to correct them, except whinge, of course!! a.
AmyMay
Situation normal
So, what are exactly are you doing for this cause - apart from posting on a forum?
Genuinely interested - as so many of us seem to be 'armchair crusaders......'
Pale Rider
Well-Known Member
More than any other equestrian sport, racing is seen by and involves more of the general public. The crowds at race tracks and watching on the T.V. is proof of this.
Racing is highly policed and regulated as it should be. It is the sports own interest to be seen as 'horse friendly' as it is possible to be.
Every time a horse breaks down and dies or is PTS on the course is another reason for people to become anti the sport, which they do in ever increasing numbers.
Owners, some who are equestrian folk, others who own racehorces just because they can, have a greater responsibility than others involved to improve the general state of the sport. Mainly by virtue of the money they can invest in it.
Breeders, trainers and everyone else would suffer if it weren't for wealthy owners, and what they bring to the sport.
It is not right that TB horses are raced so young, and must have a direct bearing on some of the fatal injuries incurred. To increase the minimum age at which a horse can race would have a dramatic and significant effect on the cost of producing a race horse to owners, but would provide additional income in other areas. Perhaps better preparation for the starting gate would remove the ugly spectical of horses being dragged and manhandled in, this surely would be safer for all concerned.
If racing was seen to invest more in the rehomeing, rehabilitation or disposal of racehorses no longer wanted, this too would go some way to improve the image. I have known horses formally owned by very wealthy folk end up as rescue cases, this cannot be right.
Unfortunately, we now live in the age of the disposable horse. This is the same in many equine disciplines, like dressage or reining where the horses are started younger and no longer wanted at around 5, if the training techniques and pressures prove too much for the horse.
It is right that people highlight and draw attention to the dark side of equine sport, or any sport which uses animals for entertainment (many of which in our enlightened age are now illegal, and rightly so). But it is also right that people be allowed to compete and enjoy equine sport. With that comes great responsibility to enhance the welfare across the board for horses involved.
To argue against improved and improving welfare is shameful, to attempt to distract and cloud the issues is also weak and spineless. For people who love horses, to be involved in and succeed in competition is a fantastic thing (I include myself in this), but increasingly, the living debris of our sports leaves a very sour taste.
Racing is highly policed and regulated as it should be. It is the sports own interest to be seen as 'horse friendly' as it is possible to be.
Every time a horse breaks down and dies or is PTS on the course is another reason for people to become anti the sport, which they do in ever increasing numbers.
Owners, some who are equestrian folk, others who own racehorces just because they can, have a greater responsibility than others involved to improve the general state of the sport. Mainly by virtue of the money they can invest in it.
Breeders, trainers and everyone else would suffer if it weren't for wealthy owners, and what they bring to the sport.
It is not right that TB horses are raced so young, and must have a direct bearing on some of the fatal injuries incurred. To increase the minimum age at which a horse can race would have a dramatic and significant effect on the cost of producing a race horse to owners, but would provide additional income in other areas. Perhaps better preparation for the starting gate would remove the ugly spectical of horses being dragged and manhandled in, this surely would be safer for all concerned.
If racing was seen to invest more in the rehomeing, rehabilitation or disposal of racehorses no longer wanted, this too would go some way to improve the image. I have known horses formally owned by very wealthy folk end up as rescue cases, this cannot be right.
Unfortunately, we now live in the age of the disposable horse. This is the same in many equine disciplines, like dressage or reining where the horses are started younger and no longer wanted at around 5, if the training techniques and pressures prove too much for the horse.
It is right that people highlight and draw attention to the dark side of equine sport, or any sport which uses animals for entertainment (many of which in our enlightened age are now illegal, and rightly so). But it is also right that people be allowed to compete and enjoy equine sport. With that comes great responsibility to enhance the welfare across the board for horses involved.
To argue against improved and improving welfare is shameful, to attempt to distract and cloud the issues is also weak and spineless. For people who love horses, to be involved in and succeed in competition is a fantastic thing (I include myself in this), but increasingly, the living debris of our sports leaves a very sour taste.
olop
Well-Known Member
I have worked on racing yards & been involved in racing since I was very young - I am far from deluded!!!
50 horses probably died yesterday....today.....and tomorrow of far worse fates then being euthanised on the track by a professional from an injury.
You will never get racing banned no matter how much you rant about it, it provides too much money for this country, thousands of jobs & it also pumps in surplus money to todays veterinary advances that we as owners should be grateful for our own horse's wellbeing.
cptrayes
Well-Known Member
Alec the people who make the decisions that Over2you, in a sometimes rather cack-handed way I do agree
(Sorry O2Y) is upset about - to risk their horses over and above what she considers an acceptable risk - are the owners and trainers who enter the horses for the races. She is not "sitting back and whinging". Short of writing a letter to every trainer and owner, she has no other way of communicating her unhappiness to them. By posting on here, she has clearly, by the reaction she gets, made a proportion of those people aware of her feelings, as she is perfectly entitled to do. No-one needs to respond to her, especially not in the way some people have.
If racing people had not engaged with her, this thread would have been dead on the day it was written.
luckyoldme
Well-Known Member
I have just read Pale Riders post and it touched on the age of these horses when they first race.
There have been threads on here where many members were outraged when people were shown to be backing or working horses too young. I thought that it was generally accepted that a horse may be backed and then turned away to mature at three years old.. maybe moving on to light work at four.
How then can a tb race at two?
Ive never seen a thread address this issue and would be interested to know if those within the raceworld approve of this .. and no im not spoiling for a fight . I just don t get why the backing of any other horse at two would be a sin.
There have been threads on here where many members were outraged when people were shown to be backing or working horses too young. I thought that it was generally accepted that a horse may be backed and then turned away to mature at three years old.. maybe moving on to light work at four.
How then can a tb race at two?
Ive never seen a thread address this issue and would be interested to know if those within the raceworld approve of this .. and no im not spoiling for a fight . I just don t get why the backing of any other horse at two would be a sin.
Leaf
Well-Known Member
cptrayes
Well-Known Member
LOM there is a considerable amount of proper evidence that flat racing TBs mature skeletally a lot earlier than other horses of heavier types, and also that fast work at a young age actually increases the strength of the bones.
This is some justification for racing them young, but I agree with you that backing a horse which is not yet two years old and racing it well before its third birthday is far from ideal. The age they race at is about return on investment, not horse welfare.
The results, I think, can be seen in how long these horses live for. My friend has just put down a 22 year old who raced at 2, having nursed her through athritic hocks, then knees, since she was 12. Her IDx of the same size and sex was put down at 29, having barely had a lame day in her life until 28 when arthritis got her knees.
While two is not a big enough sample to prove anything, of course, and the two were of different breed as well, it's my impression that this experience is far from unusual with horses which were trained to race young. I suppose the big question is whether it actually matters that racing TBs could live another 5 or 10 years longer if they were not raced so young. And if they did, what on earth would we do then with all the spare flat racers that need other horses to die so that there is a home for them to go to?
Last edited:
lachlanandmarcus
Well-Known Member
We're not rabid and blinkered about all the aspects of racing.
I think many people like me who love racing do have an issue with racing two year olds. I would be happy to see it phased out, even if the horses mature earlier I think it is not ideal.
What I wouldnt then go on to do then is to then nibble away at every other aspect of racing bit by bit in order to take it apart. So dont take the above as the thin end of any wedge....
I think many people like me who love racing do have an issue with racing two year olds. I would be happy to see it phased out, even if the horses mature earlier I think it is not ideal.
What I wouldnt then go on to do then is to then nibble away at every other aspect of racing bit by bit in order to take it apart. So dont take the above as the thin end of any wedge....
Imogen_
Well-Known Member
Thank you for posting. I have been reading this post, but have not seen the point in posting as it has been one big argument.
I like the way you have put it. I think it is a wonderful sport but with (as with most) areas that require change!
It is not correct to bash and act as if racing should not take place, when some of the owners/trainers and connections are so passionate and hardworking/careful in what they do. But nor is it right to pretend it is all perfect.
Doesn't hurt to enjoy something but remain sitting on the fence at times. For the people that slate continuously on the forum... Well it would be more respectful to hold a tongue and do something about it or maybe even open your mind a little to the entire industry and reality.
luckyoldme
Well-Known Member
thankyou for this answer lachlan. i really am just curious . As I say im not a racing fan ... and I am genuinely interested to know if there are people inside the racing world who see the issues and want changes.
all i hear is for and against..but surely there must be a middle ground.
Imogen_
Well-Known Member
Also agree with this. There are some good arguments on here... But the best appear to be anyone with a bit of reasonability behind them and their reasons.
shortstuff99
Well-Known Member
I don't normally get involved in these kinds of arguments and I'm not going to say who is right/wrong etc but in the interest of fair science wanted to say this. All the stats that are being thrown at each other aren't actually comparable. It seems like there are direct causes and indirect causes which are not directly comparable. A direct cause would be horse dies/injured jumping a fence or hit by a car, an indirect cause would be the horse breaks down and is pts or retired etc due to work load from said sport but not directly caused by the action of the sport so are not comparable. To make it fair you would have to compare either direct cause stats for horse sports or indirect cause stats or the both combined. the numbers would have to be comparable also so lower numbers would have to be extrapolated.
From this you could perhaps imply that racing is more directly dangerous or jumping is more indirectly dangerous. Either way we can not use these stats until we have all of the numbers!
From this you could perhaps imply that racing is more directly dangerous or jumping is more indirectly dangerous. Either way we can not use these stats until we have all of the numbers!
Dab
Well-Known Member
Alec the people who make the decisions that Over2you, in a sometimes rather cack-handed way I do agree
...and there in lie's the rub - who decides what is and isn't an acceptable risk to the horse? And who dictates that level of acceptability? one persons acceptable level of risk or even what constitues a risk maybe different from somebody elses.
The owner by allowing the horse to be entered into a race has accepted there is a risk to the horse, but they might just be thinking...well you know what i could turn my horse out in a field tomorrow and he could just as easily break a leg, bust a tendon, tweak a nerve hoolying around, so today i'm going to let my horse race because all things considered that level of risk is acceptable to me!
The OP clearly doesn't think that the current perceived level of risk to the horse is acceptable, and they would go as far as to dictate to others what that level of acceptability should be. But the OP needs to consider how they can make a valid and reasoned agruement to support their case, which so far they have failed to do.
Last edited:
cptrayes
Well-Known Member
Personally I think the issue is worthy of debate and some of the replies have moved the discussion forward.
People who think the risk is too high, purely on a personal level, are entitled to that feeling, and entitled to express it. The day that they cannot do so in this country will be a very bad day.
Dab
Well-Known Member
cptrayes
Well-Known Member
I'm not sure she can, to be honest, she's obviously coming from a very emotional place. I don't know her but I would guess that she doesn't have the level of training in debate that others on this forum have. Unlike some other posters, clearly not you, I don't think that bars her from raising the issue. Some of this debate has been quite worthwhile
Dab
Well-Known Member
I'm not sure she can, to be honest, she's obviously coming from a very emotional place. I don't know her but I would guess that she doesn't have the level of training in debate that others on this forum have. Unlike some other posters, clearly not you, I don't think that bars her from raising the issue. Some of this debate has been quite worthwhile
The arguement would be pointless centred around whether the OP can or can't raise this as an issue for debate. The information is out there and the subject has been raised.
But what is actually being debated in this thread? risk, welfare, individuals choice to enter a horse into a race, horses used for entertainment purposes? perceived greed in racing? 'non-horses' people owning race horses? Over breading of TB's?.....
Does the OP want to see Racing in its current form banned?, or changed from its current form and in what way? or high risk races banned or changed? or to take away an individuals choice to race their horses? or stop <3's from racing....? or something else?
.....and then there is the 1million pound question, if yes to any of the above, on what basis? and based on what factual evidence?
or it could just be that there is no debate at all to be had with the OP, and all they want to do is make people aware that horses have been PTS as a result of injurying themselves during a race.....and there is nothing at all to debate?
danielledanielle
Well-Known Member
Oh I hate it when people say 'it died doing what it loved'
I'm sure its last thoughts on the ground with a severed leg were 'Oh well, at least im not in a slaughter house'
Literally the most ridiculous argument ever LOL
I'm sure its last thoughts on the ground with a severed leg were 'Oh well, at least im not in a slaughter house'
Literally the most ridiculous argument ever LOL
FinalFurlong
Well-Known Member
this and what shazbet said. this sums it up in my book
TeamChaser
Well-Known Member
Ah but assuming a horse capable of human thought could be seen as equally ridiculous by some
Not attempting to start another debate but I would be sceptical that horses are capable of human type thought processes
I team chase and, whilst not the same as racing obviousluy, similar concept - group of horses chasing each other around a course of fences! I know mine enjoys that - I can tell ..... and not something anyone on here can disprove as you don't know my horse
Is that level of risk unacceptable to some? Is team chasing next on your hit list??Some might say horses don't enjoy racing, but how would you know they don't? And how do we know that they actually "enjoy" anything we ask of them?? Unless of course someone on here has developed the ability to read the equine mind? If anyone has by the way - I'm sure there would be a long queue for your services
Perhaps all domesticated horses are living a life of abject bloody misery (I do hope not!) The point is - where does it end? As others have asked, is this about getting racing banned? If so, it can't/won't end there.
Alec Swan
...
My main argument with O2Y's case has been as I've highlighted in the quote. What she considers to be an acceptable risk. I'm really sorry, but it's my horse, my life, and I'll do with both as I wish! I will race cars, or horses, or jump out of aircraft with a parachute, and assess my owns dangers in the process.
If I wish to buy a NH horse, and race it, and risk death or injury, then that is what I shall do, and I wont have my life governed by those who would advise me. They will advise that what I'm doing is wrong, though they probably keep horses wrapped in cotton wool, and STILL have fatal accidents.
Life is a course of risks, and I'd much prefer that others left me to run my own.
Alec.
Dab
Well-Known Member
****like****
Edited to say...
Opps sorry i meant to say i don't like this post....i love it
Last edited:
cptrayes
Well-Known Member
The problem that I have with that Alec, is that the risks are not yours. They are the horse's.
Echo Bravo
Well-Known Member
And Alec has put it plainly what most of us have said in past replies and a good sensible answer it was too.But some people cann't see what the rest of us do.