2023 Grand National

[blandy]

On 18/04/2023 at 11:56, AvfcRigo82 said:

Had the well spoken lead protestor informed her fellow comrades of equine welfare, they would realise what harm they were doing to the horses by delaying them and getting them worked up even more. 

That part of the argument doesn’t stand up to scrutiny at all. The reason why is like this:  owners and jockeys genuinely love their horses and while they know there is an element of risk in racing, they do everything they can to make sure the horses are not harmed. I think everyone accepts that the horses are well looked after and loved, right?  So the next thing is “if the horse is worked up even more and thus at potentially high risk of injury (which means they then get a bolt through the head) the thing to do is either withdraw the horse, or to delay the race for long enough for the horses to calm down. Either of those things protect the horse. Both are in the hands of the horsing people. That they did neither is not on the protesters, it’s on the horsing people.

And for balance, there are arguments for doing horsing and against what the protesters did, but for me, that isn’t one of them.

[AvfcRigo82]

1 hour ago, The Fun Factory said:

Why is the field so large for the national? If it was 25 to 30 horses would that help?

In the early declarations around February, up to 80-90 horses are put forward to the race. Over the following weeks leading up to the Grand National that number is taken down to 40 runners which is the maximum runners allowed due to safety reasons.

It has been suggested another improvement in the future to the GN could be reducing the field slightly. I'm sure it's something they may look at.

Personally I'm not sure what difference reducing the field further would do but if it's something the Racing authorities think could help improve the race and make it safe then i'm sure we may see it implemented eventually.

[CVByrne]

17 minutes ago, blandy said:

That part of the argument doesn’t stand up to scrutiny at all. The reason why is like this:  owners and jockeys genuinely love their horses and while they know there is an element of risk in racing, they do everything they can to make sure the horses are not harmed. I think everyone accepts that the horses are well linked after and loved, right?  So the next thing is “if the horse is worked up even more and thus at potentially high risk of injury (which means they then get a bolt through the head) the thing to do is either withdraw the horse, or to delay the race for long enough for the horses to calm down. Either of those things protect the horse. Both are in the hands of the horsing people. That they did neither is not on the protesters, it’s on the horsing people.

And for balance, there are arguments for doing horsing and against what the protesters did, but for me, that isn’t one of them.

So essentially, protestors delayed the start so the race should be cancelled due to the marginal increase in risk to the horses.

Thus delay any race start and you force the race cancellation.

As I know about horse racing and actually care about the horses I know changes specifically to the grand national makes no real difference to the overall safety of the sport as it's a single race among thousands run a year.

For me the start of races is a big problem and it causes a mad dash to the first fence and this overall increases risk to horses in all races. 

Edited April 18, 2023 by CVByrne

[AvfcRigo82]

2 minutes ago, blandy said:

That part of the argument doesn’t stand up to scrutiny at all. The reason why is like this:  owners and jockeys genuinely love their horses and while they know there is an element of risk in racing, they do everything they can to make sure the horses are not harmed. I think everyone accepts that the horses are well linked after and loved, right?  So the next thing is “if the horse is worked up even more and thus at potentially high risk of injury (which means they then get a bolt through the head) the thing to do is either withdraw the horse, or to delay the race for long enough for the horses to calm down. Either of those things protect the horse. Both are in the hands of the horsing people. That they did neither is not on the protesters, it’s on the horsing people.

And for balance, there are arguments for doing horsing and against what the protesters did, but for me, that isn’t one of them.

I accept that. There's also alot of hindsight after  the event as to what could have and should have been done.

I don't disagree with the questions you ask and what could have been done differently/preventable etc.

This has never happened before though so in that heat of the moment, so i can only guess that everyone starts wondering- what the hell?

Looking back, should the race have been cancelled? Probably? I genuinely think it's a very good question to put to the jockeys/owners/trainers  Aintree/BHA/Jockey Club/ITV etc. Why did you choose to still run the race?

Whether the race should have been ran or not, I stand by the fact that once they knew/seen the horses out on the track it was irresponsible and ignorant of them to still go ahead and cause the disruption they did, even though their apparant "statement" before the event that they would not bring harm to the horses. Sadly they did just that.

[blandy]

10 minutes ago, CVByrne said:

essentially, protestors delayed the start so the race should be cancelled due to the marginal increase in risk to the horses.

No. That’s completely not what I wrote.

[blandy]

9 minutes ago, AvfcRigo82 said:

I accept that. There's also alot of hindsight after  the event as to what could have and should have been done.

I don't disagree with the questions you ask and what could have been done differently/preventable etc.

This has never happened before though so in that heat of the moment, so i can only guess that everyone starts wondering- what the hell?

Looking back, should the race have been cancelled? Probably? I genuinely think it's a very good question to put to the jockeys/owners/trainers  Aintree/BHA/Jockey Club/ITV etc. Why did you choose to still run the race?

Whether the race should have been ran or not, I stand by the fact that once they knew/seen the horses out on the track it was irresponsible and ignorant of them to still go ahead and cause the disruption they did, even though their apparant "statement" before the event that they would not bring harm to the horses. Sadly they did just that.

Thanks. I recall previous Nationals that have been delayed. There was one where the starting thingy failed and possibly another the next year, or the one after where there were again some sort of problems, maybe with the bloke “starter”? messing up. I think they then delayed the start by longer than the 15 minutes they used on Saturday. I think what I’m trying to say is that maybe TV schedules and other considerations trumped horse safety. I don’t accept the protest caused harm to the horses. There were actions which could have been taken to mitigate the “worked up” factor. On the other hand, if the protesters had managed to do what they wanted in full, that would have risked both horse safety and their own safety and that’s why they don’t have my sympathy, even though I share some of their misgivings about horsing and the “use” of animals for our entertainment.

[CVByrne]

2 minutes ago, blandy said:

No. That’s completely not what I wrote.

Nobody knows how much added risk there was to the race due to the delay. Yes some horses would be more worked up and at some immeasurable increased risk at the first or second fence. 

The marginal immeasurable increase on risk doesn't outweigh the large entry fee and the work involved to get a horse to the Grand National fit and ready. Nobody would withdraw a horse unless he/she was actively acting up at the start. 

I think the point being made is the protestors delay to the start added risk to the race (again immeasurable) with the fact the race would be run. Nobody has any clue if that contributed to the horses death is literally impossible to know. Though owner and trainer are laying the blame with them. 

It's an irrelevant discussion like annual focus on a single race is to the overall welfare of race horses. 

People who care about horses are looking at the specifics of making the sport as a whole safer. The start of a race is currently a mess and I believe changes have to happen to improve both safety and fairness in that respect.

[CVByrne]

22 minutes ago, AvfcRigo82 said:

I accept that. There's also alot of hindsight after  the event as to what could have and should have been done.

I don't disagree with the questions you ask and what could have been done differently/preventable etc.

This has never happened before though so in that heat of the moment, so i can only guess that everyone starts wondering- what the hell?

Looking back, should the race have been cancelled? Probably? I genuinely think it's a very good question to put to the jockeys/owners/trainers  Aintree/BHA/Jockey Club/ITV etc. Why did you choose to still run the race?

Whether the race should have been ran or not, I stand by the fact that once they knew/seen the horses out on the track it was irresponsible and ignorant of them to still go ahead and cause the disruption they did, even though their apparant "statement" before the event that they would not bring harm to the horses. Sadly they did just that.

Delays to the start of races is increasingly common these days mainly due to false starts or for a horse needing a new shoe or similar. The delay to the start of the national isn't a rare event in racing. The additional risk from these as a whole is completely unknown. Of course we shouldn't cancel races due to delays to the start the sport would be a mess if that was the case. 

[blandy]

1 minute ago, CVByrne said:

Nobody has any clue if that contributed to the horses death is literally impossible to know. Though owner and trainer are laying the blame with them. 

It's an irrelevant discussion like annual focus on a single race is to the overall welfare of race horses.

As you say, the owner (and posters on here) said it did, and it’s unverifiable, but if the owner thought “this is (more) dangerous”, then they should have taken their horse out of the race. Blaming the protesters after the death is likely partly transferring grief or feelings of guilt “why didn’t I…?”

The reason to pick the National is twofold. Firstly it’s by far the highest profile horsing competition and secondly it’s by far the most dangerous one for horses.

Anyway, I have stuff to do. If you (anyone) is interested in listening to both sides of the debate, including the protester I mentioned then here’s the podcast

https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/the-news-agents/id1640878689?i=1000609337378

[AvfcRigo82]

8 minutes ago, blandy said:

Thanks. I recall previous Nationals that have been delayed. There was one where the starting thingy failed and possibly another the next year, or the one after where there were again some sort of problems, maybe with the bloke “starter”? messing up. I think they then delayed the start by longer than the 15 minutes they used on Saturday. 

1993 The race that never was? Jockeys got the starting tape wrapped around their necks..   half the field ran the race and the other half didn't. Eventually it was a void race anyway.

Funny enough, protesters were present on that occasion.

There were a few poor starts later on in years and delays as you mentioned. However, horses carried on parading, many jockeys stayed mounted and most of the horses remained calm.

As @CVByrne has just stated, delays are common in horse racing for a number of reasons.

On the flat delays range from anything from a Horse having a shoe changed right before the off to a horse breaking out the stalls too early and taking off down the track.

Over the jumps, again delays from a Horse having it's shoe changed through to delays due to the sun setting in their line of vision.

False starts also happen over both flat and jumps.

However, it's a calm delay, no tension, no security risks, no horses getting worked up, no need to dismount the horses and return them to the parade ring etc.

It's quite a big difference in comparison with what happened on Saturday.

[AvfcRigo82]

1 hour ago, blandy said:

https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/the-news-agents/id1640878689?i=1000609337378

Thanks for this.

I gave it a listen, sadly I couldn't take her points seriously due to all the question dodging.

She couldn't answer one question properly that was put to her, didn't put forward any argument or even suggest any real solution.

Instead, she came across as entitled, and according to her, we should all live in a world where wild horses run free and no one owns a pet.

She might not be on controlled drugs, but she definately comes across as being away with the fairies.

Edited April 18, 2023 by AvfcRigo82

[chrisp65]

I guess if there are often delays, the trick in future years is not to let the horses know if it was a security risk. Who the hell told them?

[DaveAV1]

21 hours ago, chrisp65 said:

 

40 horses dead in the last 50 years.

Are you saying they’ve just been a bit unlucky? 

Do educate me out of my ignorance on how its not possible to design a safer race.

40 dead in 50 years, how many horses have been saved due to the excellent care they receive and the big advances in veterinary science in the last 50?

I would imagine a lot more people have died in the pursuit of interests such as mountain climbing, scuba diving, sailing etc. Also the volunteers who regularly risk and sometimes lose their lives, such as mountain rescue or the RNLI. Should we ban all sports and interests? Particularly motor sport and boxing? Perhaps philately would be ok or some light brass rubbing?

[bobzy]

1 minute ago, DaveAV1 said:

40 dead in 50 years, how many horses have been saved due to the excellent care they receive and the big advances in veterinary science in the last 50?

I would imagine a lot more people have died in the pursuit of interests such as mountain climbing, scuba diving, sailing etc. Also the volunteers who regularly risk and sometimes lose their lives, such as mountain rescue or the RNLI. Should we ban all sports and interests? Particularly motor sport and boxing? Perhaps philately would be ok or some light brass rubbing?

Someone doing something themselves is very different to involving an animal or an unwilling participant, no?

[AvfcRigo82]

1 minute ago, bobzy said:

Someone doing something themselves is very different to involving an animal or an unwilling participant, no?

It's what these horses are Bred to do! Race!

Scrap racing altogether, What do we do with all the tens of thousands of horses?

[bobzy]

Just now, AvfcRigo82 said:

It's what these horses are Bred to do! Race!

Scrap racing altogether, What do we do with all the tens of thousands of horses?

Always given as some nonsense argument.  They can go to stables and kids can learn to ride horses for fun, without racing them round.  Problem solved.

[Chindie]

If you're going to go for the welfare argument against horse racing I'd imagine it's not a huge leap to the argument being we shouldn't really be galavanting around on their backs at all...

[DaveAV1]

7 minutes ago, bobzy said:

Someone doing something themselves is very different to involving an animal or an unwilling participant, no?

I understand your point but race horses aren’t an unwilling participant. A mate of mine bought an ex race horse for his daughter. After his retirement from competitive racing Murphy lived to be a ripe old age. He had a lovely character and wasn’t at all nervous. I’m not an expert but I’d say he didn’t have a bad day in his life, either when he was working or after his retirement. They race because they love it. 

[a-k]

Around 40 horses per year die during equestrian. Let's ban that activity.

40 horses per year die in road traffic accidents. Let's ban cars too.

https://www.equesure.co.uk/contact-us/news-events/how-many-horses-are-killed-on-the-uk-s-roads/

[DaveAV1]

10 minutes ago, bobzy said:

Always given as some nonsense argument.  They can go to stables and kids can learn to ride horses for fun, without racing them round.  Problem solved.

And where would you find the tens of thousands of kids with the land and stables, let alone the feed and veterinary bills?