Crosswords1 min ago
Is Our Entertainment Worth It?
Two horses have died at Aintree already...is there an argument for banning this sport?
Cards on the table...I am ambivalent. I don't want a ban, but I wouldn't care of jump racing was banned.
Where do YOU stand?
Cards on the table...I am ambivalent. I don't want a ban, but I wouldn't care of jump racing was banned.
Where do YOU stand?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by sp1814. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Ban it. Its not an argument to say that people's livelihoods depend on it, you might just as well argue that we should allow some lawbreaking because policemen's livelihoods depend on it.
Its not just the fallers, its the horses who are bred who are "surplus to requirements" or are sold off because they become injured or don't make the grade.
Its not just the fallers, its the horses who are bred who are "surplus to requirements" or are sold off because they become injured or don't make the grade.
animals lovers who might want to see it banned, may have no problem eating meat, or wearing leather, and those animals are killed so we can eat, or wear their skins. Those animals are not always killed in a way that we like to think, humanely. So i reckon that racing will continue, that they have made endless alterations to the course, that more horses will likely be killed, it is a very sad thing, i do get that, and still don't think it will be banned any day soon.
I don't really gamble and I do not watch horse racong, but I guess if you took all the risk out of it, it would be very dull and predictable. The animals seem to enjoy it, and they are usually shot because they cease to be worth anything if they break a leg. Which is probably recoverable from.
Maybe they should set up a fund where 1% of all bets on the race goes to a sanctuary for ex-runners that get injurred.
Maybe they should set up a fund where 1% of all bets on the race goes to a sanctuary for ex-runners that get injurred.
Let's ban all forms of driving while we're at it. Far more people die on the road than racehorses on racecourses.
A jockey named Neville Sellwood won the 1962 Derby on Larkspur. Just 5 months later he rode "Lucky Seven" on a wet track at Maison Lafitte racecourse, near Paris. The horse slipped and rolled on him. He died on the way to hospital. Jockey JT McNamara was left paralysed after breaking his neck at Cheltenham a few weeks ago when his horse fell, I don't recall a call for a ban on racing after those events.
A jockey named Neville Sellwood won the 1962 Derby on Larkspur. Just 5 months later he rode "Lucky Seven" on a wet track at Maison Lafitte racecourse, near Paris. The horse slipped and rolled on him. He died on the way to hospital. Jockey JT McNamara was left paralysed after breaking his neck at Cheltenham a few weeks ago when his horse fell, I don't recall a call for a ban on racing after those events.
Flat Racing accounts for 0.6 equine fatalities per 1000 runners
Steeple Chasing accounts for 4 equine fatalities per 1000 runners
Grand National 2000-2010 7 fatalities per 450 odd runner, so 8 per 1000 runners.
Animal Aid have detailed the destruction of 945 horses as a consequence of racing in the 6 years since the 2007 Cheltenham Festival.
Thats quite a tally of deaths. The difference between a jockey injuring themselves during a race and a horse is that a jockey has made a conscious, informed decision to participate - a horse does not have that choice.
So no, we should not ban Horse-Racing, but we should do whatever we can to improve the safety of the events, and the Grand National is an extremely dangerous event for the horses.
The distance of the race is too long at 4 miles, 4 furlongs or so - exhausts the horses.
Fences, particularly Beechers Brook, are especially difficult - the ground level on landing is lower than at take off, which can cause problems for the horses. The jump-off and landing should be levelled.
They should redesign the fences - something they are already doing, which is good but they can do more.
And they should restrict the field - 40 is just too many horses all competing at the fences in not enough room. The field should be reduced to 30 or less.
Steeple Chasing accounts for 4 equine fatalities per 1000 runners
Grand National 2000-2010 7 fatalities per 450 odd runner, so 8 per 1000 runners.
Animal Aid have detailed the destruction of 945 horses as a consequence of racing in the 6 years since the 2007 Cheltenham Festival.
Thats quite a tally of deaths. The difference between a jockey injuring themselves during a race and a horse is that a jockey has made a conscious, informed decision to participate - a horse does not have that choice.
So no, we should not ban Horse-Racing, but we should do whatever we can to improve the safety of the events, and the Grand National is an extremely dangerous event for the horses.
The distance of the race is too long at 4 miles, 4 furlongs or so - exhausts the horses.
Fences, particularly Beechers Brook, are especially difficult - the ground level on landing is lower than at take off, which can cause problems for the horses. The jump-off and landing should be levelled.
They should redesign the fences - something they are already doing, which is good but they can do more.
And they should restrict the field - 40 is just too many horses all competing at the fences in not enough room. The field should be reduced to 30 or less.
LazyGun refers to Animal Aid's campaign. This link is worth scrolling all the way down, just to see the size of the problem:
http://
http://
3 horses died at Catterick races on Feb 26 th this year. No publicity there. It is what happens. Mad Moose today refused to race. If a horse of whatever type breaks its leg it is no longer viable. If you suspend a horse whilst its leg heals there are far more complications. That is why they are destroyed.
