GTs
Well-Known Member
My mental capacity is just fine - I suggest you prove your point. Start taking gymnastics lessons and when you are at level 6 (merely 2 above where they start competing) give me a call and I will publicly apologize!
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Why not just ban horseracing ?
- Thread starter puddicat
- Start date
puddicat
Well-Known Member
*sigh* why don't you get back to the subject and put some substance behind your vague and generalised criticisms of me. You can't have it both ways, if you want intellectual rigor let's start with you substantiating your critisims with a bit of specificity.
What have I said that is factually inaccurate or illogical?
What have I said that is factually inaccurate or illogical?
GTs
Well-Known Member
I think you should start - why should we ban racing? Why shouldn't we continue racing horses, who were breed specifically race? What is so wrong about using them for entertainment if they are well cared for? Shouldn't when then ban all forms of equestrian activity as we get enjoyment out of them?
puddicat
Well-Known Member
OK, the original question was carefully framed, it asked whether it is ethically or morally defensible to use animals for entertainment in a way that results in their death. So first of all, it is possible to have companion animals, horses dogs etc that are used for pleasure but their life is never threatened by the activities they do. There will inevitably be accidents that result in the death of a small number of these animals but they will be exceptional events. In racing deaths occur as a direct result of the activity. These are not exception events, they can be modelled statistically so for example there is a proportion of animals that will die as a result of fractures etc. So a moral distinction can be made on the basis of the circumstances that lead to death. We could discuss the proportion of deaths in SJ and XC as people did and I think it was a point well made but so happens I chose racing. So, back to the moral question, if you do think that it is OK to have animals die as the result of an entertainment activity the answer is easy - racing is fine. If you think it is wrong to have animals die [etc] then morally you would find racing unacceptable unless it was changed such that the only deaths were exceptional events. Any other activity where deaths were exceptional would be acceptable. Whether the horses are well cared for or bred for the purpose are different questions and they don't equate: Horse deaths aren't any more acceptable becasue you treat them nicely before they die. You should treat them nicely anyway!
Now read your last post again and I think you will have the answers to the questions you asked.
Whether you understand or accept this argument I can assure you the UK Horseracing Authority does as do the funding bodies that support racing related research. It's a no-brainer that the ideal is to reduce deaths to exception events, a more intresting question is to what extent can the activity related [modelled] deaths be reduced and how. We could have a discussion where I try to persuade you using evidence that they are as low as they will get without some major change that isn't on the horizon but that would be a different debate.
RIGHT YOUR TURN - substantiate the personal accusations you made against me
Let's start with: What have I said that is factually inaccurate or illogical?
Now read your last post again and I think you will have the answers to the questions you asked.
Whether you understand or accept this argument I can assure you the UK Horseracing Authority does as do the funding bodies that support racing related research. It's a no-brainer that the ideal is to reduce deaths to exception events, a more intresting question is to what extent can the activity related [modelled] deaths be reduced and how. We could have a discussion where I try to persuade you using evidence that they are as low as they will get without some major change that isn't on the horizon but that would be a different debate.
RIGHT YOUR TURN - substantiate the personal accusations you made against me
Let's start with: What have I said that is factually inaccurate or illogical?
vicijp
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
So, in my previous post I was agreeing with somebody correctly implied, you could leave a horse until maturity without racing or race training, then train it to race. I'm not clear whether your disagreement was:
(1) that horses trained in this way would drop to pieces if raced. - that is incorrect because like with any athletic training, you train and perform within the performance and adaptation capacity of the athlete. So horses would perform at a lower level than racehorses trained early in life but if the age constraints were applied equally to horses in training that would allow fair competition.
[/ QUOTE ]
I find that statement inaccurate. You know from previous arguments that we tend not to race at 2yo here, but all are broken and canter a bit as 2yo - even the jumpers.
This generally happens all around the country - if you see an 'unbroken 3/4yo' at the sales it is a lie.
The fact is that if they do a bit as 2yo they never get sore shins, even when you race them as late 3yo/4yo. You break in a 4yo and they will get sore shins before they get to the track.
So, in my previous post I was agreeing with somebody correctly implied, you could leave a horse until maturity without racing or race training, then train it to race. I'm not clear whether your disagreement was:
(1) that horses trained in this way would drop to pieces if raced. - that is incorrect because like with any athletic training, you train and perform within the performance and adaptation capacity of the athlete. So horses would perform at a lower level than racehorses trained early in life but if the age constraints were applied equally to horses in training that would allow fair competition.
[/ QUOTE ]
I find that statement inaccurate. You know from previous arguments that we tend not to race at 2yo here, but all are broken and canter a bit as 2yo - even the jumpers.
This generally happens all around the country - if you see an 'unbroken 3/4yo' at the sales it is a lie.
The fact is that if they do a bit as 2yo they never get sore shins, even when you race them as late 3yo/4yo. You break in a 4yo and they will get sore shins before they get to the track.
puddicat
Well-Known Member
Yes I agree, but do you think it is possible to have a training regime that would not result in a 4yo getting shore shins before they get to the track? I appreciate the practical answer is 'no' because it would have to be less intense and perhaps over a longer period, and the resulting performance level of the horse could be less than horses broken at 2yo which not a lot a use. But if everyone did it?
vicijp
Well-Known Member
I dont hink there is any other way around it.
If you break horses in at 4yo they are going to get sore shins. Ive found that to be pretty much fact. In this yard it is taken as by the way - they go staright out in the field for 3 months off, whether they have havent got to the track or had 1 or 2 runs. The problems with sore shins start when trainers ice them up and carry on - they think that because they cant feel them they arent there. I find that horses that have had this done to them either break down (tendon) during that season or the next. Again, I find that pretty much fact.
I was using it as an example of early work strenghthening the horse.
Please accept that even though ours our broken at 2, a couple of canters means a couple of canters. They will do a few weeks of steady work (ie walk then one hack canter, working up to x2 hack canters up 3f AW gallop). When they are ready they will do a faster bit (x1 hack canter, x1 bit faster), then they go out in the field for a minimum 6 months rest.
I think whatever training regime a 4yo ahs, it is going to get sore shins. So say you break a horse at 4, spend 9 months working up to a run, the horse is 5. Would the horse still get sore shins, then need time off which would probably put it out until it is too old to run in bumpers?
They have introduced the 3yo 1m4/6f bumpers due to research proving that early work stands the horse in good stead for a sounder life. It is just sad that the big trainers are farming these races with flat bred youngsters.
If you break horses in at 4yo they are going to get sore shins. Ive found that to be pretty much fact. In this yard it is taken as by the way - they go staright out in the field for 3 months off, whether they have havent got to the track or had 1 or 2 runs. The problems with sore shins start when trainers ice them up and carry on - they think that because they cant feel them they arent there. I find that horses that have had this done to them either break down (tendon) during that season or the next. Again, I find that pretty much fact.
I was using it as an example of early work strenghthening the horse.
Please accept that even though ours our broken at 2, a couple of canters means a couple of canters. They will do a few weeks of steady work (ie walk then one hack canter, working up to x2 hack canters up 3f AW gallop). When they are ready they will do a faster bit (x1 hack canter, x1 bit faster), then they go out in the field for a minimum 6 months rest.
I think whatever training regime a 4yo ahs, it is going to get sore shins. So say you break a horse at 4, spend 9 months working up to a run, the horse is 5. Would the horse still get sore shins, then need time off which would probably put it out until it is too old to run in bumpers?
They have introduced the 3yo 1m4/6f bumpers due to research proving that early work stands the horse in good stead for a sounder life. It is just sad that the big trainers are farming these races with flat bred youngsters.
Spot1
Well-Known Member
Hi Vicijp
Ref your statement
[ QUOTE ]
I think whatever training regime a 4yo ahs, it is going to get sore shins.
[/ QUOTE ]
If we take this as read, it surely must give grounds for concern. However it does seem to be at odds with your previous statement.
[ QUOTE ]
The fact is that if they do a bit as 2yo they never get sore shins, even when you race them as late 3yo/4yo.
[/ QUOTE ]
My understanding of sore shins (metacarpal periostitis) is that after the age of 3 there is a significant reduction in the sensitivity to this inflammation. How issues such as maturity are tackled could be an important indication of the ethics of the thoroughbred industry. The heart of the original question is purely a point of moral/ethical judgement.
Ref your statement
[ QUOTE ]
I think whatever training regime a 4yo ahs, it is going to get sore shins.
[/ QUOTE ]
If we take this as read, it surely must give grounds for concern. However it does seem to be at odds with your previous statement.
[ QUOTE ]
The fact is that if they do a bit as 2yo they never get sore shins, even when you race them as late 3yo/4yo.
[/ QUOTE ]
My understanding of sore shins (metacarpal periostitis) is that after the age of 3 there is a significant reduction in the sensitivity to this inflammation. How issues such as maturity are tackled could be an important indication of the ethics of the thoroughbred industry. The heart of the original question is purely a point of moral/ethical judgement.
Spot1
Well-Known Member
Re: GTs
[ QUOTE ]
I think you should start - why should we ban racing?
[/ QUOTE ]
I would be just as interested to hear your (and any other)views resulting from this slant on the original question. If you do feel able to tackle it better in this way perhaps you should also treat the central issue (imo) in a similar light, instead of:
[ QUOTE ]
"why should be doing anything that results in the death of an animal when the net purpose of the activity is nothing more than the entertainment of humans"
[/ QUOTE ]
then:
Why shouldn't we do something that results in the death of an animal even if the net purpose is nothing more than the entertainment of humans?
[ QUOTE ]
I think you should start - why should we ban racing?
[/ QUOTE ]
I would be just as interested to hear your (and any other)views resulting from this slant on the original question. If you do feel able to tackle it better in this way perhaps you should also treat the central issue (imo) in a similar light, instead of:
[ QUOTE ]
"why should be doing anything that results in the death of an animal when the net purpose of the activity is nothing more than the entertainment of humans"
[/ QUOTE ]
then:
Why shouldn't we do something that results in the death of an animal even if the net purpose is nothing more than the entertainment of humans?
vicijp
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
Hi Vicijp
Ref your statement
[ QUOTE ]
I think whatever training regime a 4yo ahs, it is going to get sore shins.
[/ QUOTE ]
If we take this as read, it surely must give grounds for concern. However it does seem to be at odds with your previous statement.
[ QUOTE ]
The fact is that if they do a bit as 2yo they never get sore shins, even when you race them as late 3yo/4yo.
[/ QUOTE ]
My understanding of sore shins (metacarpal periostitis) is that after the age of 3 there is a significant reduction in the sensitivity to this inflammation. How issues such as maturity are tackled could be an important indication of the ethics of the thoroughbred industry. The heart of the original question is purely a point of moral/ethical judgement.
[/ QUOTE ]
My previous statement meant 4yo which have not been in training previously - they always suffer.
Horses that have a bit of training at 2/3yo never suffer. Although I am not saying that 2yo that race wont get them, simply that (as research has proved) early training can improve a horses long term soundness.
Hi Vicijp
Ref your statement
[ QUOTE ]
I think whatever training regime a 4yo ahs, it is going to get sore shins.
[/ QUOTE ]
If we take this as read, it surely must give grounds for concern. However it does seem to be at odds with your previous statement.
[ QUOTE ]
The fact is that if they do a bit as 2yo they never get sore shins, even when you race them as late 3yo/4yo.
[/ QUOTE ]
My understanding of sore shins (metacarpal periostitis) is that after the age of 3 there is a significant reduction in the sensitivity to this inflammation. How issues such as maturity are tackled could be an important indication of the ethics of the thoroughbred industry. The heart of the original question is purely a point of moral/ethical judgement.
[/ QUOTE ]
My previous statement meant 4yo which have not been in training previously - they always suffer.
Horses that have a bit of training at 2/3yo never suffer. Although I am not saying that 2yo that race wont get them, simply that (as research has proved) early training can improve a horses long term soundness.
Spot1
Well-Known Member
Hi Vicijp
Thanks for coming back on that. Would I be right in assuming that in your experience it is the intensity of the training that could cause problems and therefore it should be possible to avoid sore shins with a longer more gradual training program?
Thanks for coming back on that. Would I be right in assuming that in your experience it is the intensity of the training that could cause problems and therefore it should be possible to avoid sore shins with a longer more gradual training program?
vicijp
Well-Known Member
No, not at all. If you read back through my posts I state that any 4yo just starting work will get sore shins, regardless of workload.