I own racehorses so know exactly how well they are looked after and there welfare is paramount.One of my horses got injured and the Racecourse vet wanted him put down but through the owners and trainer the horse was transported back from the Midlands to Devon. Looked after then moved onto a horse welfare centre which is charity run.To say it’s all about money is wrong as with the purchase and two year training fees the outlay was £60,000 plus with no return plus we continued to pay for the horse for a further three years.About two months ago we had the sad call to say the horse had damaged his leg whilst in the stable at night and had to be put down
Glad the horse at least had a second chance. I know through family friends how well the horses are looked after, not only because they are valuable assets but they are genuinely loved, respected and cared for. My concern is that the horses are put in harm's way. Either more can be done to make it safer for the horses, or for racing to not happen at all.
This is an important issue and I support the petition in principle, however the cruelty we put animals through on an hourly basis in this country to produce cheap meat in Tescos makes this issue very trivial.
My comment re 'crap again' was more to do with the argument that is likely to follow on the forum rather than the subject matter itself. It comes up at every Cheltenham meeting......and I believe it's usually Anna_Kissed leading the way if I'm not mistaken.....I just feel the subject has been done to death on here. I remember last time round it led to quite a bit of heated argument. I fall into a not quite knowing what to do re National Hunt racing. It's certainly very sad to see the death of any horse under these circumstances, so let me be clear on that if nothing else. I am not a horse racing fan and remain indifferent about it.
My comment re 'crap again' was more to do with the argument that is likely to follow on the forum rather than the subject matter itself. It comes up at every Cheltenham meeting......and I believe it's usually Anna_Kissed leading the way if I'm not mistaken.....I just feel the subject has been done to death on here. I remember last time round it led to quite a bit of heated argument. I fall into a not quite knowing what to do re National Hunt racing. It's certainly very sad to see the death of any horse under these circumstances, so let me be clear on that if nothing else. I am not a horse racing fan and remain indifferent about it.
As I, and others, see it, Nick, the issue is about the commodification of animals, be that in racing, food production, or medical and commercial experimentation. Granted, in racing, the individuality and character of the creature - horse, or dog - 'shines' and is apparent. Pity the poor chicken in a windowless shed, or a cat in a laboratory, whose characters are suppressed and largely unseen.
Whether the animal finds itself in a race, a huge shed, or in a cage in a lab, the consistent factor is that the animal has not chosen or consented to being there. That they are there is down to human might and interference - breeding, selection, use of captivity, force, etc. Unless living wild, the animals - individuals, all - are there because they are, for the most part, subservient, subordinate and submissive. They would rather not have it this way, methinks.
Anyway...another Cheltenham Festival, and the fall-out is both repetitious and predictable. Things surely need to change and some of us are driving that change.
I’m a fan of horse racing and don’t like to see any animal injured so will more than likely sign the petition if it aims to make racing safer, but your second paragraph leads me to play devils advocate and ask the following question.
Do guide dogs for the blind, hearing dogs for the deaf, sniffer dogs, police dogs and horses, the kings troop or any non thoroughbred horse that is ridden or pulls a carriage etc “rather not have it this way”? All fall under the human interference argument so are any of these targeted? I’d imagine, though don’t know the facts that particularly the kings troop horses undergo similar breaking in to that of a race horse and am sure there are accidents that result in deaths. I’m genuinely interested how, percentage wise those compare to horse racing.
As I, and others, see it, Nick, the issue is about the commodification of animals, be that in racing, food production, or medical and commercial experimentation. Granted, in racing, the individuality and character of the creature - horse, or dog - 'shines' and is apparent. Pity the poor chicken in a windowless shed, or a cat in a laboratory, whose characters are suppressed and largely unseen.
Whether the animal finds itself in a race, a huge shed, or in a cage in a lab, the consistent factor is that the animal has not chosen or consented to being there. That they are there is down to human might and interference - breeding, selection, use of captivity, force, etc. Unless living wild, the animals - individuals, all - are there because they are, for the most part, subservient, subordinate and submissive. They would rather not have it this way, methinks.
Anyway...another Cheltenham Festival, and the fall-out is both repetitious and predictable. Things surely need to change and some of us are driving that change.
I’m a fan of horse racing and don’t like to see any animal injured so will more than likely sign the petition if it aims to make racing safer, but your second paragraph leads me to play devils advocate and ask the following question.
Do guide dogs for the blind, hearing dogs for the deaf, sniffer dogs, police dogs and horses, the kings troop or any non thoroughbred horse that is ridden or pulls a carriage etc “rather not have it this way”? All fall under the human interference argument so are any of these targeted? I’d imagine, though don’t know the facts that particularly the kings troop horses undergo similar breaking in to that of a race horse and am sure there are accidents that result in deaths. I’m genuinely interested how, percentage wise those compare to horse racing.
I'd say it comes to the risk/reward of using animals, also that you've seen the horse run on national TV with thousands cheering it on.
Sniffer dogs save lives so it's easier to stomach whereas the race horses are just for entertainment / a shady industry making money. I suppose if a couple of dogs in crufts were put down due to injuries sustained during the show each year, people would have a similar reaction.
My comment re 'crap again' was more to do with the argument that is likely to follow on the forum rather than the subject matter itself. It comes up at every Cheltenham meeting......and I believe it's usually Anna_Kissed leading the way if I'm not mistaken.....I just feel the subject has been done to death on here. I remember last time round it led to quite a bit of heated argument. I fall into a not quite knowing what to do re National Hunt racing. It's certainly very sad to see the death of any horse under these circumstances, so let me be clear on that if nothing else. I am not a horse racing fan and remain indifferent about it.
So why open the thread? Can you honestly tell me you have never opened a thread to which you are not particularly interested and then commented on that thread....of course you have. Indeed haven't we all. You enjoy goading me don't you, I don't know why, you seen to have an issue with me. Oh well.... so be it.
My comment re 'crap again' was more to do with the argument that is likely to follow on the forum rather than the subject matter itself. It comes up at every Cheltenham meeting......and I believe it's usually Anna_Kissed leading the way if I'm not mistaken.....I just feel the subject has been done to death on here. I remember last time round it led to quite a bit of heated argument. I fall into a not quite knowing what to do re National Hunt racing. It's certainly very sad to see the death of any horse under these circumstances, so let me be clear on that if nothing else. I am not a horse racing fan and remain indifferent about it.
So why open the three?
Can you honestly tell me you have never opened a thread to which you are not particularly interested and then commented on that thread....of course you have. Indeed haven't we all. You enjoy goading me don't you, I don't know why, you seen to have an issue with me. Oh well.... so be it.
My comment re 'crap again' was more to do with the argument that is likely to follow on the forum rather than the subject matter itself. It comes up at every Cheltenham meeting......and I believe it's usually Anna_Kissed leading the way if I'm not mistaken.....I just feel the subject has been done to death on here. I remember last time round it led to quite a bit of heated argument. I fall into a not quite knowing what to do re National Hunt racing. It's certainly very sad to see the death of any horse under these circumstances, so let me be clear on that if nothing else. I am not a horse racing fan and remain indifferent about it.
So why open the three? Can you honestly tell me you have never opened a thread to which you are not particularly interested and then commented on that thread....of course you have. Indeed haven't we all. You enjoy goading me don't you, I don't know why, you seen to have an issue with me. Oh well.... so be it.
Ruby Walsh banned for excessive use of the whip. (Again).
Walsh also angered animal advocates in 2014 following comments that he made regarding the death of a racehorse, Our Conor. Despite receiving medical attention, the back injury sustained proved to be fatal for the five-year-old.
When asked for his reaction to the news, Walsh, responded: "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. You can't replace a human being. That's my feeling on it."
Walsh's comment riled the founder of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), Ingrid Newkirk, who stated: "Walsh's comments expose the true emotion behind horse racing - greed. They are deeply offensive to anyone who has ever loved and lost a horse or other beloved animal companion. Unlike Walsh, horses are not unfeeling, but experience joy, anxiety, fear and affection, just as human beings do.
Animal Aid's horse-racing consultant Dene Stansall, who speaks for the charity, said, “It’s completely disrespectful. To treat the death of a horse in such a way shows that they are merely machines for people to make money. Ruby Walsh is the leading jockey at Cheltenham and wants to support the event as much as he can, but you cannot disregard the lives of horses just because they are not humans.”
As some of you may know, I am a dyed-in-the-wool National Hunt racing fan (and, as it happens, a former owner of chasers with Jenny Pitman - 2nd to none when it came to her horses' welfare. I can assure you it cost me a great deal of money to enjoy this but enjoy it I did, despite the occasional but terrible heartache that can go with it). There is a great deal of misunderstanding about NH racing. As in all walks of life there good and bad people involved in it but I encourage you to read @killer kish 's contributions on this subject (on this and previous similar threads) because he speaks for many (I contend the majority of) NH racing fans and participants. I won't repeat those points here as I couldn't make them any better than he does. Racing has done a huge amount to improve safety for horses over the years but there is one area that I have long felt was untenable and unacceptable. I have always solidly been with John McCririck in his view that horses that win races but whose jockies are found to have broken the whip rules should be disqualified - no ifs or buts. I accept that this could theoretically open up a can of worms as regards potential litigation over substantial lost prize money and I accept all the points about whips being much altered in design (and they have been) but it is totally unacceptable in terms of perception about horse welfare (as well as its reality) and, dare I say, fairness of the sport to permit (what is in fact) cheating to succeed financially. Fine jockey though he is, Ruby Walsh is not unfamiliar to the stewards for illicit use the whip and he is far from alone. Unfortunately, the profits and therefore temptations to break the rules are that much greater in the biggest and therefore most-viewed races. So long as the sport allows cheats to profit, they will and NH racing is going to attract understandable criticism for putting money above horse welfare.
As some of you may know, I am a dyed-in-the-wool National Hunt racing fan (and, as it happens, a former owner of chasers with Jenny Pitman - 2nd to none when it came to her horses' welfare. I can assure you it cost me a great deal of money to enjoy this but enjoy it I did, despite the occasional but terrible heartache that comes to most racehorse owners). There is a great deal of misunderstanding about NH racing. As in all walks of life there good and bad people involved in it but I encourage you to read @killer kish 's contributions on this subject (on this and previous similar threads) because he speaks for many (I contend the majority of) NH racing fans and participants. I won't repeat those points here as I couldn't make them any better than he does. Racing has done a huge amount to improve safety for horses over the years but there is one area that I have long felt was untenable and unacceptable. I have always solidly been with John McCririck in his view that horses that win races but whose jockies are found to have broken the whip rules should be disqualified - no ifs or buts. I accept that this could theoretically open up a can of worms as regards potential litigation over substantial lost prize money and I accept all the points about whips being much altered in design (and they have been) but it is totally unacceptable in terms of perception about horse welfare (as well as its reality) and, dare I say, fairness of the sport to permit (what is in fact) cheating to succeed financially. Fine jockey though he is, Ruby Walsh is not unfamiliar to the stewards for illicit use the whip and he is far from alone. Unfortunately, the profits and therefore temptations to break the rules are that much greater in the biggest and therefore most-viewed races. So long as the sport allows cheats to profit, they will and NH racing is going to attract understandable criticism for putting money above horse welfare.
So are you for or against the wording of the petition?
As some of you may know, I am a dyed-in-the-wool National Hunt racing fan (and, as it happens, a former owner of chasers with Jenny Pitman - 2nd to none when it came to her horses' welfare. I can assure you it cost me a great deal of money to enjoy this but enjoy it I did, despite the occasional but terrible heartache that comes to most racehorse owners). There is a great deal of misunderstanding about NH racing. As in all walks of life there good and bad people involved in it but I encourage you to read @killer kish 's contributions on this subject (on this and previous similar threads) because he speaks for many (I contend the majority of) NH racing fans and participants. I won't repeat those points here as I couldn't make them any better than he does. Racing has done a huge amount to improve safety for horses over the years but there is one area that I have long felt was untenable and unacceptable. I have always solidly been with John McCririck in his view that horses that win races but whose jockies are found to have broken the whip rules should be disqualified - no ifs or buts. I accept that this could theoretically open up a can of worms as regards potential litigation over substantial lost prize money and I accept all the points about whips being much altered in design (and they have been) but it is totally unacceptable in terms of perception about horse welfare (as well as its reality) and, dare I say, fairness of the sport to permit (what is in fact) cheating to succeed financially. Fine jockey though he is, Ruby Walsh is not unfamiliar to the stewards for illicit use the whip and he is far from alone. Unfortunately, the profits and therefore temptations to break the rules are that much greater in the biggest and therefore most-viewed races. So long as the sport allows cheats to profit, they will and NH racing is going to attract understandable criticism for putting money above horse welfare.
So are you for or against the wording of the petition?
I'm not going to participate in a pointless argument about it but, since you ask, I think the wording of the petition is a manipulation of public opinion by a organisation who will not stop until NH racing is banned - in which case, aside from anything else, the beauty and magnificence that is a steeple-chaser would cease to be. I won't be signing it but I bow to no one in terms of wanting NH racing to be as safe as possible for all participants. Sadly, there will always be equine and human fatalities.
As some of you may know, I am a dyed-in-the-wool National Hunt racing fan (and, as it happens, a former owner of chasers with Jenny Pitman - 2nd to none when it came to her horses' welfare. I can assure you it cost me a great deal of money to enjoy this but enjoy it I did, despite the occasional but terrible heartache that comes to most racehorse owners). There is a great deal of misunderstanding about NH racing. As in all walks of life there good and bad people involved in it but I encourage you to read @killer kish 's contributions on this subject (on this and previous similar threads) because he speaks for many (I contend the majority of) NH racing fans and participants. I won't repeat those points here as I couldn't make them any better than he does. Racing has done a huge amount to improve safety for horses over the years but there is one area that I have long felt was untenable and unacceptable. I have always solidly been with John McCririck in his view that horses that win races but whose jockies are found to have broken the whip rules should be disqualified - no ifs or buts. I accept that this could theoretically open up a can of worms as regards potential litigation over substantial lost prize money and I accept all the points about whips being much altered in design (and they have been) but it is totally unacceptable in terms of perception about horse welfare (as well as its reality) and, dare I say, fairness of the sport to permit (what is in fact) cheating to succeed financially. Fine jockey though he is, Ruby Walsh is not unfamiliar to the stewards for illicit use the whip and he is far from alone. Unfortunately, the profits and therefore temptations to break the rules are that much greater in the biggest and therefore most-viewed races. So long as the sport allows cheats to profit, they will and NH racing is going to attract understandable criticism for putting money above horse welfare.
So are you for or against the wording of the petition?
I'm not going to participate in a pointless argument about it but, since you ask, I think the wording of the petition is a manipulation of public opinion by a organisation who will not stop until NH racing is banned - in which case, aside from anything else, the beauty and magnificence that is a steeple-chaser would cease to be. I won't be signing it but I bow to no one in terms of wanting NH racing to be as safe as possible for all participants. Sadly, there will always be equine and human fatalities.
This sentence feels incongruous with action.
You're clearly incredibly knowledgeable on the subject, and seem to value horse safety. Sometimes in life we make awkward and uncomfortable bargains with people who we don't see eye to eye with in the name of a larger good. Regardless of what you think of think of the group putting it forward, this is a petition to investigate and try to stop so many horses from dying. It seems pretty straightforward.
Well done to @Anna_Kissed for sticking up for his views, presenting them well and suggesting positive, relevant action that can be taken by horse racing fans and non-fans alike.
It's a contentious issue, so it's good that AK has presented it in a totally non-inflammatory way.
It would be good to hear the views of anyone who does not want to sign the petition, because I can't think of any good ones.
As some of you may know, I am a dyed-in-the-wool National Hunt racing fan (and, as it happens, a former owner of chasers with Jenny Pitman - 2nd to none when it came to her horses' welfare. I can assure you it cost me a great deal of money to enjoy this but enjoy it I did, despite the occasional but terrible heartache that can go with it). There is a great deal of misunderstanding about NH racing. As in all walks of life there good and bad people involved in it but I encourage you to read @killer kish 's contributions on this subject (on this and previous similar threads) because he speaks for many (I contend the majority of) NH racing fans and participants. I won't repeat those points here as I couldn't make them any better than he does. Racing has done a huge amount to improve safety for horses over the years but there is one area that I have long felt was untenable and unacceptable. I have always solidly been with John McCririck in his view that horses that win races but whose jockies are found to have broken the whip rules should be disqualified - no ifs or buts. I accept that this could theoretically open up a can of worms as regards potential litigation over substantial lost prize money and I accept all the points about whips being much altered in design (and they have been) but it is totally unacceptable in terms of perception about horse welfare (as well as its reality) and, dare I say, fairness of the sport to permit (what is in fact) cheating to succeed financially. Fine jockey though he is, Ruby Walsh is not unfamiliar to the stewards for illicit use the whip and he is far from alone. Unfortunately, the profits and therefore temptations to break the rules are that much greater in the biggest and therefore most-viewed races. So long as the sport allows cheats to profit, they will and NH racing is going to attract understandable criticism for putting money above horse welfare.
Nicely put. Incredibly fair and exceptionally balanced. To the point that it'd be hard for a fan or non-fan to claim anything other than it being a totally, and undeniably, non inflammatory piece from someone with a greater deal of knowledge from inside the industry than someone outside of it.
I'm human and it's my right to make animals do what I want.
I spend my money and as long as my horse returns more than I expend I shall love it. I shall love it and risk it's health and life in pursuit of money.
When its health and/or life is comprosmised I shall still love it. From it's welfare sanctuary. Where the tab eventually gets picked up by people who oppose horseracing. I restart with another horse.
Two horses died today on the opening day of the Cheltenham Festival.
RIP Mossback and RIP Report To Base.
More horses have died at Cheltenham Racecourse than any other in Britain. In 2017, twelve horses died there, four of whom were killed during the four-day Cheltenham Festival. Last Spring, I wrote to the racecourse, via its website, to register my sadness and to request information about what - if anything - was to be done to reduce injury and fatality. I did not receive a response.
Jockeys Ruby Walsh and Patrick Mullins have both been handed suspensions for over-use of the whip in the OLBG Mares' Hurdle today.
Animal Aid, a Kent-based animal welfare charity, has recently launched an e-petition urging the government to set up an independent regulatory body, with horse welfare as its only interest.
Don't fully understand the implications of signing this. If it could lead to the banning of horse racing i wouldn't sign it, if it would lead to the better treatment of horses inside horce racing then i would. The petition itself isn't clear on the terms of reference.
The numbers of horses dying in NH racing and at Cheltenham in particular is not a matter of opinion, it is a deplorable fact. Aintree (eventually) made changes to the grand national course's obstacles, significantly reducing casualties in the years since. Jump racing's powers that be won't listen to anybody on the matter short of the threat of criminal prosecution. Their attitude to animal welfare is complacent at best. Anything that hastens reform is a good thing. Given NH's position in the Establishment, serious reform will only be imposed if it is deemed to be a vote winner politically.
As far as my own views go - a regulatory body would go a good way toward helping animal welfare. I love racing and I'm sure I speak for many of us when I say I am gutted at racehorse deaths.
As far as my own views go - a regulatory body would go a good way toward helping animal welfare. I love racing and I'm sure I speak for many of us when I say I am gutted at racehorse deaths.
For that reason, I have signed the petition.
You could be calling for an end to NH racing then.
As far as my own views go - a regulatory body would go a good way toward helping animal welfare. I love racing and I'm sure I speak for many of us when I say I am gutted at racehorse deaths.
For that reason, I have signed the petition.
You could be calling for an end to NH racing then.
"An independent regulatory body" implies that neither NH advocates nor horsedeathwatch would be involved. If I've accidentally called for the end of NH racing, which I'm pretty sure I haven't (that's a fairly interesting claim to make), then well I've been hoisted by my own petard of a conscience.
As far as my own views go - a regulatory body would go a good way toward helping animal welfare. I love racing and I'm sure I speak for many of us when I say I am gutted at racehorse deaths.
For that reason, I have signed the petition.
You could be calling for an end to NH racing then.
"An independent regulatory body" implies that neither NH advocates nor horsedeathwatch would be involved. If I've accidentally called for the end of NH racing, which I'm pretty sure I haven't (that's a fairly interesting claim to make), then well I've been hoisted by my own petard of a conscience.
But what powers would they have? Where does their remit end?
'an independent regulatory body, with horse welfare as its only interest, which will take meaningful action to stop horses dying.'
Comments
It comes up at every Cheltenham meeting......and I believe it's usually Anna_Kissed leading the way if I'm not mistaken.....I just feel the subject has been done to death on here.
I remember last time round it led to quite a bit of heated argument.
I fall into a not quite knowing what to do re National Hunt racing.
It's certainly very sad to see the death of any horse under these circumstances, so let me be clear on that if nothing else.
I am not a horse racing fan and remain indifferent about it.
Do guide dogs for the blind, hearing dogs for the deaf, sniffer dogs, police dogs and horses, the kings troop or any non thoroughbred horse that is ridden or pulls a carriage etc “rather not have it this way”?
All fall under the human interference argument so are any of these targeted?
I’d imagine, though don’t know the facts that particularly the kings troop horses undergo similar breaking in to that of a race horse and am sure there are accidents that result in deaths.
I’m genuinely interested how, percentage wise those compare to horse racing.
Sniffer dogs save lives so it's easier to stomach whereas the race horses are just for entertainment / a shady industry making money. I suppose if a couple of dogs in crufts were put down due to injuries sustained during the show each year, people would have a similar reaction.
Instead, his suspension will come into effect for rides on March 27 and 28 so he still gets to race in the glamour races at Cheltenham
There is a great deal of misunderstanding about NH racing. As in all walks of life there good and bad people involved in it but I encourage you to read @killer kish 's contributions on this subject (on this and previous similar threads) because he speaks for many (I contend the majority of) NH racing fans and participants.
I won't repeat those points here as I couldn't make them any better than he does.
Racing has done a huge amount to improve safety for horses over the years but there is one area that I have long felt was untenable and unacceptable. I have always solidly been with John McCririck in his view that horses that win races but whose jockies are found to have broken the whip rules should be disqualified - no ifs or buts.
I accept that this could theoretically open up a can of worms as regards potential litigation over substantial lost prize money and I accept all the points about whips being much altered in design (and they have been) but it is totally unacceptable in terms of perception about horse welfare (as well as its reality) and, dare I say, fairness of the sport to permit (what is in fact) cheating to succeed financially.
Fine jockey though he is, Ruby Walsh is not unfamiliar to the stewards for illicit use the whip and he is far from alone. Unfortunately, the profits and therefore temptations to break the rules are that much greater in the biggest and therefore most-viewed races. So long as the sport allows cheats to profit, they will and NH racing is going to attract understandable criticism for putting money above horse welfare.
I won't be signing it but I bow to no one in terms of wanting NH racing to be as safe as possible for all participants. Sadly, there will always be equine and human fatalities.
You're clearly incredibly knowledgeable on the subject, and seem to value horse safety. Sometimes in life we make awkward and uncomfortable bargains with people who we don't see eye to eye with in the name of a larger good. Regardless of what you think of think of the group putting it forward, this is a petition to investigate and try to stop so many horses from dying. It seems pretty straightforward.
The petition is very limited in what it's trying to achieve other than 'meaningful action'. What exactly does that mean?
It's a contentious issue, so it's good that AK has presented it in a totally non-inflammatory way.
It would be good to hear the views of anyone who does not want to sign the petition, because I can't think of any good ones.
Signed.
But to be honest with this one, when you are up against big business, I think you are flogging a dead ho.... oh er...
I spend my money and as long as my horse returns more than I expend I shall love it. I shall love it and risk it's health and life in pursuit of money.
When its health and/or life is comprosmised I shall still love it. From it's welfare sanctuary. Where the tab eventually gets picked up by people who oppose horseracing. I restart with another horse.
Got it.
Aintree (eventually) made changes to the grand national course's obstacles, significantly reducing casualties in the years since.
Jump racing's powers that be won't listen to anybody on the matter short of the threat of criminal prosecution. Their attitude to animal welfare is complacent at best. Anything that hastens reform is a good thing. Given NH's position in the Establishment, serious reform will only be imposed if it is deemed to be a vote winner politically.
https://www.racingpost.com/news/time-for-racing-to-accept-the-inevitable-the-whip-will-have-to-go/291907
http://www.attheraces.com/blogs/kevin-blake/07-July-2017
As far as my own views go - a regulatory body would go a good way toward helping animal welfare. I love racing and I'm sure I speak for many of us when I say I am gutted at racehorse deaths.
For that reason, I have signed the petition.
'an independent regulatory body, with horse welfare as its only interest, which will take meaningful action to stop horses dying.'
Could mean anything.