Grand National - Page 2

SPUGGIE J · 08-04-2006, 10:06

A lot of the top horses both flat and jumps are better treated than we are. If you watch some of the racing these horses enjoy what they are doing and dispite being "domesticated" still behave as a wild animal would as so far as the strongest and fitest rules the herd. Racing is just a way of them doing this. End result we get the pleasure of watching them and the can do there Alpha animal bit leading to a win win situation.

garinda · 08-04-2006, 10:11

I haven't watched it since it was won by Elizabeth Taylor in National Velvet.

SPUGGIE J · 08-04-2006, 10:15

Blimey were did that come from?

garinda · 08-04-2006, 10:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by SPUGGIE J

Blimey were did that come from?

She came from behind to win the national, only to be disqualified when it was discovered she was a fourteen year old girl.

I think she may need a sturdier horse if she was going to win it now though, as the film was made in the 40's.

SPUGGIE J · 08-04-2006, 10:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by garinda

I think she may need a sturdier horse if she was going to win it now though, as the film was made in the 40's.

Whould a Clydesdale be able to jump Beachers? At least racing has come a long way since then as female riders are becoming more commen.

jambutty · 08-04-2006, 10:37

So we would be deprived of the sight of such beautiful animals if horse racing were banned? Not much of a reason for keeping it going is it junetta? Rather selfish I think! As for the industry being wiped out – tell that to the miners, steelworkers, textile workers, car workers, sea fishermen to name just a few.

If a horse breaks a leg or suffers some other injury it is put down. I believe that the method is shooting. Not much of a reward is it?

If the best that you can do staggeringman is to get personal with insults then I know that you don’t have a valid argument.

Note to a mod. Do you really want such an obnoxious person as a member of this forum?

I accept that the top horses are very well cared for but only because they are valuable to the owners. Would the same level of care be lavished on them if they were not top horses? Less valuable horses, those that rarely if ever win or even get a place are not so well cared for.

One final point - for every winner there must be some losers.

SPUGGIE J · 08-04-2006, 10:44

Shooting a horse is a last resort the same as with any animal. Some of the losers as you call them go out to pasture at places that in some cases have facilities for children to learn to ride even the disabled (one not far from me) so they still have a happy life. Better than the continental idea that puts it on a plate because it "earning days are over."

jambutty · 08-04-2006, 10:54

It wasn’t much of a last resort at Cheltenham a few weeks back was it? Wasn’t it 9 horses put down? Were they that badly injured or did it have something to do with the expense of treatment?

I accept that some of the losers will be found good homes but those that cannot are put down and there are more of those.

SPUGGIE J · 08-04-2006, 11:07

Quote:

Originally Posted by jambutty

It wasn’t much of a last resort at Cheltenham a few weeks back was it? Wasn’t it 9 horses put down? Were they that badly injured or did it have something to do with the expense of treatment?

I accept that some of the losers will be found good homes but those that cannot are put down and there are more of those.

Most horses that break a leg are destroyed because it is not possible to fix the break. Horse racing has strict rules around the destroying of animals and that does not come down to cost. If the animals leg can be fixed it will be even if that horse has to retire. The insurence for them is no different for them than say a fireman as there is a minute possibility a serious accident can occur. I have been to horse racing meetings and the vets concern is always the horse not the financial outcome. If they were not concerned for the horses why are stones removed and as much of the cut ground on the couse after each race not removed and re bedded?

As for Cheltenham yes it was a bad week but as it is a televised race any animals that are injured beyond effective vetinary help are at the forefront of any race outcome. It will always be there and not always over the jumps since flat horses can have the same issues though not as often.

If it was not televised would anyone notice or bother?

People do not just abandon an investment which a race horse is just because its not top flight anymore a lot end up running point to point racing which is the third form of raceing for horses in Britain

jambutty · 08-04-2006, 11:38

My argument isn’t about how well horses are treated in racing circles but whether there should be racing at all.

I think that it is immoral for humans to use animals to determine the outcome of a human competition. Even more so when the humans make wagers on the outcome. Sport is for competing humans who have a choice on whether to take part or not. Animals do not have that choice. They are coerced into taking part and trained to do so.

Racing across a field to see who gets to the other side first is not a natural horse or dog trait although in the case of hunting dogs the first to the kill gets the first bite at the meat. A horse may run for a variety of other reasons but being the first to get somewhere is not one of them.

That is my opinion and surely I am entitled to that.

I don’t expect anyone to agree with me but I do expect a coherent argument against my view without dashing off at a tangent with irrelevant issues.

SPUGGIE J · 08-04-2006, 12:41

On that basis what would we do if we did not have farms with cows sheep hens etc. The argument put forward is a valid one but if we never had animals of any kind domesticated or hand reared where would we be? No milk meat leather etc. If we fix one set of rules to animals because we use them in sport then we would have to fix them to all animals. Men have always and always will in the future use animals for one purpose or another. To us animals are a resource same as land oil wood etc and are treated ass such.

jambutty · 08-04-2006, 12:51

You are off on a tangent again SPUGGIE J that has nothing to do with using animals for sport.

Ernie · 08-04-2006, 13:01

"Racing across a field to see who gets to the other side first is not a natural horse or dog trait " (Jambutty).

It may or not be natural, but I think the horses actually enjoy it because how many riderless horses do you see running with the others when the jockeys have been thrown off.

jambutty · 08-04-2006, 13:18

Whether a horse ‘enjoys’ a run is a moot point but they carry on running when the rider has been thrown because they are following the herd, as they would do in the wild when trying to get away from danger.

But that is getting away from the topic of this thread. Why should animals be used for man’s sport?

SPUGGIE J · 08-04-2006, 13:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by jambutty

You are off on a tangent again SPUGGIE J that has nothing to do with using animals for sport.

So we should not use animals for sport (your opinion and respected as that) but use them for everything else. Were is the difference?