They die bescause they go fast on any ground. The only chance is to slow them down and the only way you can do that is by having them start in front of the stands and have the first fence 150 yards after the turn. The bend would be interesting!! But they would still be galloping on down to the third and fourth. You could reduce the numbers but not sure that's the issue.
The Road to the Grand National 2011
- Thread starter Bar the Bull
- Start date
They die bescause they go fast on any ground. The only chance is to slow them down and the only way you can do that is by having them start in front of the stands and have the first fence 150 yards after the turn. The bend would be interesting!! But they would still be galloping on down to the third and fourth. You could reduce the numbers but not sure that's the issue.
I wouldn't say that speed kills, per se - but stupidity sure does. If that's what causes speeding, then it's stupidity that's at fault, not the speed. Dozens of F1 drivers employ extreme speeds with some intelligence, and don't get killed every meeting. We've had a very wet and boggy winter here and we've still lost a lot of horses, simply because instead of going a fast splat, which often does for a leg or a shoulder, they've made tired falls, usually onto their heads, and broken their necks.
Stupidity seems to be at the root of a lot of what's wrong in racing - stupidity in siting jumps; stupidity in racing horses wrong for the trip, the course, or the race; stupidity in carelessness or decisions by riders; stupidity in failing to do what's right by your horse.
I don't think we can overcome stupidity by the further resiting of jumps, shortening and lengthening distances, lessening drops or restricting horses to a much narrower ratings band for these sort of races. All such implementations might curtail its unbridled effect, but as it's a problem endemic to racing, it might take more than a year or ten to sort out. The idea of reducing the size of the fields or the jumps, on personal reflection, would only, I think, increase the stupidity factor further and lead to just as many accidents, if not more.
Stupidity seems to be at the root of a lot of what's wrong in racing - stupidity in siting jumps; stupidity in racing horses wrong for the trip, the course, or the race; stupidity in carelessness or decisions by riders; stupidity in failing to do what's right by your horse.
I don't think we can overcome stupidity by the further resiting of jumps, shortening and lengthening distances, lessening drops or restricting horses to a much narrower ratings band for these sort of races. All such implementations might curtail its unbridled effect, but as it's a problem endemic to racing, it might take more than a year or ten to sort out. The idea of reducing the size of the fields or the jumps, on personal reflection, would only, I think, increase the stupidity factor further and lead to just as many accidents, if not more.
jinnyj
Senior Jockey
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2004
- Messages
- 4,563
Two posts taken from another forum which may be of some interest:
BRITISH HORSERACING AUTHORITY’S DIRECTOR OF EQUINE SCIENCE AND WELFARE STATEMENT ON THE GRAND NATIONAL
Professor Tim Morris, Director of Equine Science and Welfare, said:
“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 to 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 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, including injuries and fatalities, please see:
http://www.britishhorseracing.com/resources/equine-science-and-welfare/horsewelfare.asp
http://www.britishhorseracing.com/resources/equine-science-and-welfare/injuries-fatalities.asp
and also
BY JAMES BURN
THE BHA on Monday hit back at critics of Saturday's John Smith's Grand National, in which two horses died, launching a staunch defence of the showpiece race and its safety measures.
Ornais and Dooneys Gate were the two horses fatally injured, meaning two of the contest's 30 famous fences were bypassed, while the winner, Ballabriggs, was immediately dismounted by jockey Jason Maguire - in accordance with a pre-race directive from the BHA.
The scenes sparked an outbreak of criticism from animal rights groups and the national press, but Tim Morris, the BHA's director of equine science and welfare, said Saturday's events demonstrated the welfare improvements.
"The Grand National is a difficult race and was run this year on an unseasonably warm day," Morris said in a statement on Monday night.
"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 overheating [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 beenreported, to prevent the race from being voided. Again this is welfare in action."
Morris singled out animal rights pressure group Animal Aid for criticism, saying: "They 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.
“If racing 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."
BRITISH HORSERACING AUTHORITY’S DIRECTOR OF EQUINE SCIENCE AND WELFARE STATEMENT ON THE GRAND NATIONAL
Professor Tim Morris, Director of Equine Science and Welfare, said:
“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 to 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 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, including injuries and fatalities, please see:
http://www.britishhorseracing.com/resources/equine-science-and-welfare/horsewelfare.asp
http://www.britishhorseracing.com/resources/equine-science-and-welfare/injuries-fatalities.asp
and also
BY JAMES BURN
THE BHA on Monday hit back at critics of Saturday's John Smith's Grand National, in which two horses died, launching a staunch defence of the showpiece race and its safety measures.
Ornais and Dooneys Gate were the two horses fatally injured, meaning two of the contest's 30 famous fences were bypassed, while the winner, Ballabriggs, was immediately dismounted by jockey Jason Maguire - in accordance with a pre-race directive from the BHA.
The scenes sparked an outbreak of criticism from animal rights groups and the national press, but Tim Morris, the BHA's director of equine science and welfare, said Saturday's events demonstrated the welfare improvements.
"The Grand National is a difficult race and was run this year on an unseasonably warm day," Morris said in a statement on Monday night.
"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 overheating [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 beenreported, to prevent the race from being voided. Again this is welfare in action."
Morris singled out animal rights pressure group Animal Aid for criticism, saying: "They 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.
“If racing 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."
Animal Aid is definitely not an animal welfare group, and their 'supporters', it seems, aren't even genuinely 'rightists'. Was speaking with some people at Plumpton today and one said he'd stopped to speak to one of the AA protestors last year at Cheltenham. He decided he'd be friendly and not confrontational and found out from the youth who'd been bawling about horse murder that he wasn't employed, never had been, but that he was trundling round with AA as they'd pay all his expenses, give him overnight accommodation, and feed him, and he'd fancied a few days out because of that. He had no knowledge of horses or racing, wasn't interested in the agenda, other than that he would stand and yell at people until it was time to go back to their digs and a nice free meal.
When I hear that AA supporters care for poorly wild life, help improve the environment for birds and fish, etc., etc., I might be slightly more understanding of their point of view. As it is, they wish to see ALL forms of the use of animals, even as companion pets, finished. I assume they'd sign up to be 24/7 live-in guides for the blind and deaf who currently rely upon their trained dogs.
When I hear that AA supporters care for poorly wild life, help improve the environment for birds and fish, etc., etc., I might be slightly more understanding of their point of view. As it is, they wish to see ALL forms of the use of animals, even as companion pets, finished. I assume they'd sign up to be 24/7 live-in guides for the blind and deaf who currently rely upon their trained dogs.
Last edited: