Your opinions- Ruby Walsh comments about the death at Cheltenham

[Spencer93]

Surprised no ones mentioned this yet, What do people think about the comments made by Ruby Walsh on the death of Our Conor at Cheltenham festival? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/ho...peaks-bluntly-about-the-death-of-a-horse.html

 

[fburton]

There's been some discussion of it here...

http://www.horseandhound.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?656590-cheltenham

 

[toomanyhorses26]

I thought it was a brilliantly written article - I can understand his thinking and tbh I agree with what he has said - yes perhaps the timing was a little close but I think he sums up what is a difficult subject very well

 

[Spencer93]

Thanks fburton, I only ever really read stuff on the Tack Room

 

[kassieg]

I think that the way he worded it was a bit ****** but in essence he speaks the truth

Sadly being in horses & competing professionally horses & sometimes humans die its a risk we take with our horses & best friends & its a risk we take ourselves
Whilst sad but doing what he does he probably has seen so many deaths that 1 isn't more significant than the other they are all a tragedy but jockeys probably half expect things like this to happen at big race meets

I livery on a point 2 point yard & we had 1 drop dead of heart attack the other day when in the pen, only a 2 year old was devastating but everyone is getting on with things as normal

Sadly life goes on

 

[PolarSkye]

I thought it was a brilliantly written article - I can understand his thinking and tbh I agree with what he has said - yes perhaps the timing was a little close but I think he sums up what is a difficult subject very well

This.

Can we move on now?

P

 

[LaMooch]

I think a lot of people were up in arms (especially on facebook) as they didn't read or hear the whole story. He said a horses death is nothing compared to a person. A horse can be replaced but a person can not

 

[Spencer93]

I posted this to see if people agreed with me and it seems they do. I agree with everything said above. He could have phrased it better but he made a point most of us agree with. It seems like often these 'welfare issues' are mainly raised by people who don't actually have horses. It seems contradictory in a way that most horse lovers agree with his statements whereas most of the people I have seen up in arms on facebook about it don't have horses and most of them have never owned so much as a hamster. I suppose that's part of what comes with owning animals, accepting that they die and that essentially its not the end of the world in the same way it would be when a sibling or parent or close friend dies. It doesn't mean we care any less about our horses it just means we accept them for what they are.

 

[ChesnutsRoasting]

I think a lot of people were up in arms (especially on facebook) as they didn't read or hear the whole story. He said a horses death is nothing compared to a person. A horse can be replaced but a person can not

I've grieved more over a horses death than I have over a close humans. No life that is a part of your life, can be replaced.

 

[Echo Bravo]

He spoke the truth and some people didn't like it, yes he could have said it better, but that's life.

 

[AmyMay]

I thought it was rather crass.

 

[Marydoll]

I've grieved more over a horses death than I have over a close humans. No life that is a part of your life, can be replaced.

I agree with the latter half of this comment

 

[cptrayes]

There are some horses which will be more heavily mourned by their owners than the loss of a close relative. I think it unlikely that any of them will be race horses, but I suppose it's not impossible.

 

[bonny]

I lost a racehorse and it was the worst day of my life.....

 

[LaMooch]

I've grieved more over a horses death than I have over a close humans. No life that is a part of your life, can be replaced.

Sorry I didn't put it right in my post I did mean a racehorses as that's his industry I was not meaning all horses. Sometimes I don't put what I want to say well

 

[cptrayes]

I lost a racehorse and it was the worst day of my life.....

If you lost it on the track or due to racing injury, have you sent another racing since??

 

[bonny]

Yes

 

[cptrayes]

Well, I can only really think that if it was truly the worst day of your life to lose one due to racing, and yet you sent another into the same exceptionally high risk activity, that the worst day of your life does not come anywhere near the worst day of most people's lives, or you simply wouldn't have been able to bear the thought of the very high likelihood of the same thing happening again.

Alternatively, maybe you are able to convince yourself that the risk is lower for your horses than the statistics published by the racing industry would suggest.

I'm just struggling to imagine being devastated by the loss of one horse, and then sending another to do what kills one in two hundred and fifty starters while on the track.

 

[bonny]

Do you imagine that everybody who loses a horse never does the same again ? I also lost a horse out at grass and I still turn horses out....if everybody who had competition horses stopped because they lost a horse or saw it happen then horse sports would stop ......yes, racing is dangerous, for the horses and the humans but for me it is an acceptable risk, however hard it is at the time.

 

[cptrayes]

Do you imagine that everybody who loses a horse never does the same again ? I also lost a horse out at grass and I still turn horses out....if everybody who had competition horses stopped because they lost a horse or saw it happen then horse sports would stop ......yes, racing is dangerous, for the horses and the humans but for me it is an acceptable risk, however hard it is at the time.

It is the scale of the risk which always bothers me. If turning out caused one death per 20 hours of activity, as NH racing does, give or take, then no horse turned out for twenty hours a day would be expected to survive the 'season'. It's that level of risk that I can't understand people being prepared to take with horses that they know they would feel devastated to lose.

As I say, the only way I can square this is if those people are able to convince themselves that it simply won't happen to their horse. Otherwise, how could they bear the pain when they do lose one.

Alternatively, clearly unlike yourself, there is the Walsh view that the horse deaths simply don't really affect them.

 

[misskerry]

I think all he was trying to say is that horses that die on the track get a lot more coverage then the jockeys who get badly injured and who's lives and families lives are turned upside down because of it.
Yes its devastating when a horse that was a part of your life and you worked with dies. But the horse does not leave a family after it who will have to cope with out it. A horse lives for the moment and does not have to worry about the future. Most jockeys have to worry about the future and when they get a fall and injure themselves beyond repair there lives and there family's lives changes.
Over here there are a lot of animal rights people are giving out about him but what he said has nothing to do with animal welfare. I don't think if a horse dies under Ruby Walsh he just goes "opps my bad" I'm sure it shakes him just as it would anyone else.
Just remember these horse are well looked after because they have a job to. And I think a horse that is well looked after, has a job today and enjoys it is a happy horse. well that my opinion.

 

[bonny]

I suppose there has to be an element of thinking that it won't happen to you, or to your horse or no one would take part. The jockeys are a 1 in 10 chance of falling, the only way they can keep doing it is to not think about the risks or the danger....look at how many jockeys were injured at Cheltenham and yet they continue because for most, it's the only thing they want to do.

 

[Pearlsasinger]

It is the scale of the risk which always bothers me. If turning out caused one death per 20 hours of activity, as NH racing does, give or take, then no horse turned out for twenty hours a day would be expected to survive the 'season'. It's that level of risk that I can't understand people being prepared to take with horses that they know they would feel devastated to lose.

As I say, the only way I can square this is if those people are able to convince themselves that it simply won't happen to their horse. Otherwise, how could they bear the pain when they do lose one.

Alternatively, clearly unlike yourself, there is the Walsh view that the horse deaths simply don't really affect them.

We keep all our horses for life, we've lost them to field accident, illness and genuine old age and there is a 100% certainty that we will lose them but we have always got another. I'm afraid that I don't understand the 'I love my pet too much to ever have another one' argument, whether it is said about dogs, cats or horses. Surely the pleasure you get during their lifetime is worth the anguish of losing them?

 

[Bantry]

Alternatively, clearly unlike yourself, there is the Walsh view that the horse deaths simply don't really affect them

He never said that! He actually did say it's sad to lose a horse but since racing has claimed the lives of jockeys, in his perspective it would be worse to lose a person than a horse.

He said “Horses are horses. You can replace a horse. It’s sad, but horses are animals, outside your back door. Humans are humans, they are inside your back door. You can replace a horse but you can’t replace a human being.”

I for one agree with him and you're entitled to a different opinion but don't go paraphasing and twisting what was actually said please.

 

[toomanyhorses26]

I think there iis an element though of we have a one on one bond with our horses - generally we may have one or two so when they go they leave a really big hole in our day - I know losing my mare had that effect. He must see countless horses each day so doesn't get that time with each one. I am sure that a loss must have some sort of effect but I can honestly say I agree with him and I would much rather my best friend,other half etc etc came back than one of my horses if I absolutely had to make that choice

 

[Wagtail]

I've grieved more over a horses death than I have over a close humans. No life that is a part of your life, can be replaced.

I am lucky in that no one who is really close to me has ever died. So my biggest grief came when my mare dies last year. I consider her death at the level of the death of a friend. I have lost horses before and it has been no where near as painful or as long lasting. But when people have a string of horses bred to perform, then yes, they can be replaced. It is all to do with perceptions. After all, humans replace husbands, wives etc.

I think it is a strange comment because it all depends on the grief of those losing the person or animal. Sometimes the loss of an animal can hurt more. I'm not saying that is right or wrong, but it is fact and I don't think people should be criticised for how they feel. Humans are only more important than animals to other humans, not in the whole scheme of things. A human is not more important than an animal. But obviously they are to other humans.

 

[LaMooch]

Only 1 family member (my daughter) and two close friends I'd find more devastating to loose then my friends TB my share.

 

[TheSylv007]

I guess jockeys view horses just as tools of the trade, and as such are disposable once they've got their results out of them - they probably feel as much for the horses as a Formula 1 driver feels for a car, its just there to do a job. I had heard that Ruby Walsh has since broken his arm. Some might say that karma's a b*tch eh but I wouldn't possibly go there.

 

[AdorableAlice]

I guess jockeys view horses just as tools of the trade, and as such are disposable once they've got their results out of them - they probably feel as much for the horses as a Formula 1 driver feels for a car, its just there to do a job. I had heard that Ruby Walsh has since broken his arm. Some might say that karma's a b*tch eh but I wouldn't possibly go there.

You guessed wrong.

 

[Clare85]

I guess jockeys view horses just as tools of the trade, and as such are disposable once they've got their results out of them - they probably feel as much for the horses as a Formula 1 driver feels for a car, its just there to do a job. I had heard that Ruby Walsh has since broken his arm. Some might say that karma's a b*tch eh but I wouldn't possibly go there.

I don't agree. Yes the racehorses are there to do a job, but so is every horse. It's just that jockeys ride 100s of horses, they can't build up a one on one bond with every horse they sit on. If every jockey threw up their hands and gave up every time a racehorse died, racing would be a very short lived sport.

Ruby's comments were blunt and probably a little mis-timed but I understand where he is coming from. I used to work at a riding school and we loved all the horses, some more than others probably but that's life. It was awful when one had to be pts and we all felt the loss greatly, but we got on with our jobs and had to 'replace' the horse because otherwise the business would've gone bust. The clients wouldn't have wanted to see a yard full of bawling staff when they turned up for their lessons.

I had an old companion mare for two youngsters and if she had been pts whilst she was still fulfilling her job as nanny then we would've had to replace her for the sake of the youngsters, despite the fact we would've been devastated - as we were when she was pts after the littluns were all grown up.

If my Mum died tomorrow, or my best friend, I could not replace that person in my life. I only have one Mum. That is what Ruby was getting at I think.

If no-one replaced their horses when they died, there would be no equine community whatsoever. No, you cannot replace one specific horse and some horses we bond with more than others, but for the most part we carry on, we get another different horse to do the same job and we miss our old horse but we build a new bond and new memories.