Magic, you have a point
- Tipster
-
- Premium Member
-
- Posts: 852
- Thanks: 36
Re: Re: Magic, you have a point
14 years 1 month ago
I think jumps racing in sunny countries like Australia is a no no due to the fast ground, but if you took it away in from the UK and Ireland you would be taking away one of the very fibres of the country. It would be like banning rugby in South Africa.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- Bob Brogan
-
- Administrator
-
- Posts: 82474
- Thanks: 6449
Re: Re: Magic, you have a point
14 years 1 month ago
You also got to remember that the national hunt guys are a different breed and many come from stock and farming circles.
National day is massive in the UK much bigger than your July or the epsom Derby etc,its the publics race !
30 years ago only 5000 attended ,Saturday race was the first sell out since the 60's
National day is massive in the UK much bigger than your July or the epsom Derby etc,its the publics race !
30 years ago only 5000 attended ,Saturday race was the first sell out since the 60's
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- Bob Brogan
-
- Administrator
-
- Posts: 82474
- Thanks: 6449
Re: Re: Magic, you have a point
14 years 1 month ago
BRITISH HORSERACING AUTHORITY’S DIRECTOR OF EQUINE SCIENCE AND WELFARE STATEMENT ON THE GRAND NATIONAL
“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 for 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 two or 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 please see:
www.britishhorseracing.com/resources/equ...are/horsewelfare.asp
www.britishhorseracing.com/resources/equ...uries-fatalities.asp
“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 for 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 two or 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 please see:
www.britishhorseracing.com/resources/equ...are/horsewelfare.asp
www.britishhorseracing.com/resources/equ...uries-fatalities.asp
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- Frodo
-
- Platinum Member
-
- Posts: 13120
- Thanks: 3032
Re: Re: Magic, you have a point
14 years 1 month ago
Having read most of the views on this, I had a good think about it and imo there is a place in Europe for jump racing in general and the Grand National in particular; I agree that the trip may need to be shortened and the fences perhaps amended - but it must also be remembered that this was 'designed' as a supreme test for a horse (much like the Comrades for ultra-marathon athletes). But I also think they made a mistake by running it on a hot day on fast ground - imo postponing the meeting should have been considered.
As for the view that 'the horses do not have a choice'; I believe that the statement also applies to the horses we stable and race here in SA - so if that's the reasoning behind wanting to ban racing over the jumps, you should also be opposed to horse racing (and the chariots and dog racing and fishing and what about pidgeon racing) in general. And then we could go on debating the other choices one makes in life - hunting, eating meat, etc.
And to quote Tipster - 'if you took it away in from the UK and Ireland you would be taking away one of the very fibres of the country'
Just my opinion.
As for the view that 'the horses do not have a choice'; I believe that the statement also applies to the horses we stable and race here in SA - so if that's the reasoning behind wanting to ban racing over the jumps, you should also be opposed to horse racing (and the chariots and dog racing and fishing and what about pidgeon racing) in general. And then we could go on debating the other choices one makes in life - hunting, eating meat, etc.
And to quote Tipster - 'if you took it away in from the UK and Ireland you would be taking away one of the very fibres of the country'
Just my opinion.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- Badger
-
- Junior Member
-
- Posts: 56
- Thanks: 2
Re: Re: Magic, you have a point
14 years 1 month ago
Craig ... just wanted to thank you for the feedback
I guess that would mean between 20 and 30 horse deaths a year in this country on the tracks
But i have no reference to say whether this is acceptable or not
I guess that would mean between 20 and 30 horse deaths a year in this country on the tracks
But i have no reference to say whether this is acceptable or not
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- Craig Eudey
-
- Platinum Member
-
- Posts: 4561
- Thanks: 559
Re: Re: Magic, you have a point
14 years 1 month ago
Hi Badger
I dont think any death is acceptable and I think most people think the same. We have to try and cut down the number
of horses breaking down and being put down on course or at the training tracks.Maybe the NHRA vet should go into
the horse that broke down lameness history and see if it had had problems before or the track possibly to blame.
I dont think any death is acceptable and I think most people think the same. We have to try and cut down the number
of horses breaking down and being put down on course or at the training tracks.Maybe the NHRA vet should go into
the horse that broke down lameness history and see if it had had problems before or the track possibly to blame.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Time to create page: 0.110 seconds